THE OBAMA 95% "TAX CUT"

I don't normally paste articles, but this is an important one that I think needs to be disseminated and since I'm certainly not one who can explain the intricacies of a tax plan, it's appropriate that I link this.

This is very important.

The coward Obama's choice to opt out of public financing for this election is allowing him to run ads day and night claiming that 95% of Americans are to receive a "tax cut."

Since most Americans prefer to spend their own money and want to pay less taxes, this must sound good. For most undecideds, a claim like this may sway their vote. Even some conservatives (the few who aren't paying attention) may think this is a great idea.

I'm sure for most of you thinking adults, this doesn't make sense and here's a very good explanation of why and the implications of such a plan.

As a working American, please know that what's detailed in this article will be YOUR FUTURE if you don't vote for McCain on November 4th. Forward this article to any working American who may need to understand the truth.

These tv ads, these outright lies, are being spread every day in every swing state in America and it must be known what this "tax cut" really means.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html

Bottom of the 9th, bases loaded, 2 outs...down by 3

SWING AND A MISS!

McCain needed a homerun (or at least a double off-the-wall) and he missed his opportunity. He may have won the debate, but I don't think it was enough to win the election. It pains me to say it, but McCain and his handlers failed to prepare adequately for this debate. Obama is an easy opponent to prepare for, he said the same "talking points" as the the 1st and 2nd debates. The key to a successful debate is to set up your opponent, to get them to speak from a defensive point of view. McCain needed to set up Obama as the "smooth talking, eloquent trial lawyer he truly is." McCain needed to set up Obama as "an empty suit, a politician who will and has been promising the world to everyone." That way when Obama starts his talking, he looses credibility. Obama has been lying his whole career, so it's nothing for him to continue his lying during the debates.

McCain let Obama off the hook on each major topic of the discussion; he let him go on education, he let him go on defense, he failed to connect the dots with Ayers (although he did mention the topic of Obama and Ayers, he failed to connect the dots as needed..it turned into a he said/he said back-n-forth). McCain mentioned Joe the Plumber, but didn't deliver enough on the "Spreading the wealth" comment. McCain had an excellent opportunity to tie Obama to the Fannie Mae/Mac scandal (he didn't) McCain could have done this, could have done that...but, the bottom line is he DID NOT do enough.

McCain tried to swing for the fences, he tried to hit the home run, but ended up getting jammed and hitting a weak ground ball to second.

The Coming Liberal Thugocracy

"I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors," Barack Obama told a crowd in Elko, Nev. "I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face." Actually, Obama supporters are doing a lot more than getting into people's faces. They seem determined to shut people up.

That's what Obama supporters, alerted by campaign e-mails, did when conservative Stanley Kurtz appeared on Milt Rosenberg's WGN radio program in Chicago. Mr. Kurtz had been researching Mr. Obama's relationship with unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers in Chicago Annenberg Challenge papers in the Richard J. Daley Library in Chicago - papers that were closed off to him for some days, apparently at the behest of Obama supporters.

Obama fans jammed WGN's phone lines and sent in hundreds of protest e-mails. The message was clear to anyone who would follow Mr. Rosenberg's example. We will make trouble for you if you let anyone make the case against The One.

Other Obama supporters have threatened critics with criminal prosecution. In September, St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch and St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce warned citizens that they would bring criminal libel prosecutions against anyone who made statements against Mr. Obama that were "false." I had been under the impression that the Alien and Sedition Acts had gone out of existence in 1801-'02. Not so, apparently, in metropolitan St. Louis. Similarly, the Obama campaign called for a criminal investigation of the American Issues Project when it ran ads highlighting Mr. Obama's ties to Mr. Ayers.

These attempts to shut down political speech have become routine for liberals. Congressional Democrats sought to reimpose the "fairness doctrine" on broadcasters, which until it was repealed in the 1980s required equal time for different points of view. The motive was plain: to shut down the one conservative-leaning communications medium, talk radio. Liberal talk-show hosts have mostly failed to draw audiences, and many liberals can't abide having citizens hear contrary views.

To their credit, some liberal old-timers - like House Appropriations Chairman David Obey - voted against the "fairness doctrine," in line with their longstanding support of free speech. But you can expect the "fairness doctrine" to get another vote if Barack Obama wins and Democrats increase their congressional majorities.

Corporate liberals have done their share in shutting down anti-liberal speech, too. "Saturday Night Live" ran a spoof of the financial crisis that skewered Democrats like House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank and liberal contributors Herbert and Marion Sandler, who sold toxic-waste-filled Golden West to Wachovia Bank for $24 billion. Kind of surprising, but not for long. The tape of the broadcast disappeared from NBC's Web site and was replaced with another that omitted the references to Mr. Frank and the Sandlers. Evidently NBC and its parent, General Electric, don't want people to hear speech that attacks liberals.

Then there's the Democrats' "card check" legislation that would abolish secret ballot elections in determining whether employees are represented by unions. The unions' strategy is obvious: Send a few thugs over to employees' homes - we know where you live - and get them to sign cards that will trigger a union victory without giving employers a chance to be heard.

Once upon a time, liberals prided themselves, with considerable reason, as the staunchest defenders of free speech. Union organizers in the 1930s and 1940s made the case that they should have access to employees to speak freely to them, and union leaders like George Meany and Walter Reuther were ardent defenders of the First Amendment.

Today's liberals seem to be taking their marching orders from other quarters. Specifically, from the college and university campuses where administrators, armed with speech codes, have for years been disciplining and subjecting to sensitivity training any students who dare to utter thoughts that liberals find offensive. The campuses that once prided themselves as zones of free expression are now the least free part of our society.

Obama supporters who found the campuses congenial and Mr. Obama himself, who has chosen to live all his adult life in university communities, seem to find it entirely natural to suppress speech they don't like and seem utterly oblivious to claims this violates the letter and spirit of the First Amendment. In this campaign, we have seen the coming of the Obama thugocracy, suppressing free speech, and we may see its flourishing in the four or eight years ahead.

• Michael Barone is a nationally syndicated columnist.

Washington Times October 13th, 2008