Wake up America |
| Fact Checking McCain Ad Saying Obama Voted For Sex-Ed For Kindergartners Posted: 16 Sep 2008 10:56 AM CDT Byron York from the National Review has done a good job of going through the bill that the John McCain campaign used in their "Education" video ad regarding Barack Obama's support of Senate Bill 99 which would allow kindergartners to be taught sexual education. Video ad below: The ad above says Barack Obama voted for a bill that would teach sex education to kindergartners and the Obama campaign denied the assertion and accused the McCain campaign of lies and smears. Pulling up the text of the bill gives the answers. McCain spokesperson Tucker Bound's responded by stating "the Obama campaign did not and cannot dispute a shred of the content in the ad." The text of the ad in question: Education Week says Obama hasn't made a significant mark on Education. That he's elusive on accountability. A staunch defender of the existing public school monopoly. Obama's one accomplishment? Legislation to teach comprehensive sex education to kindergartners. Learning about sex before learning to read? Barack Obama, wrong on education. Wrong for your family. The media jumped in with some saying McCain distorted the facts of the bill, the left accused the McCain campaign of lies and smears and the Obama campaign created an ad called honor in response to the McCain ad. All the ink dedicated to one specific ad, about a bill that Obama did not sponsor but did support, and which did not get passed into law, aroused curiosity across the Web, which was easily satisfied by looking into the text of Senate Bill 99 and the press release that proceeded the vote on the three part package which includes Senate Bill 99. The opening paragraph of the release states: An unprecedented package of legislation aimed at preventing unintended pregnancies, reducing the need for abortion and reducing the spread of sexually transmitted infections will be unveiled today at a Springfield press conference. Composed of three separate bills, the legislation will cover: 1) medically accurate sex education; 2) funding for family planning services for women in need; 3) contraceptive equity in health insurance. The Sponsor of the original bill, Senator Carol Ronen, was quoted in the release as saying, "It teaches students about the advantages of abstinence, while also giving them the realistic information they need about the prevention of an unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections." SENATE BILL 99. Sec. 27-9.1. Sex Education. (A) Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV. Section one supports the McCain ad assertions that sexual education is the specific purpose of Senate Bill 99. Part 2.2.1 of Section One, also offers Barack Obama some protection about his voting for Senate Bill 99 where it states: (2) All (1) course material and instruction shall be age and developmentally appropriate. Immediately following that line in the bill comes the purpose for the bill: Course material and instruction shall include a discussion of sexual abstinence as a method to prevent unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. Then we come to the portion of the bill that Obama spokesman, Bill Burton, says the bill was intended for, which in his words were "written to protect young children from sexual predators." "Course material and instruction shall teach pupils to not make unwanted physical and verbal sexual advances and how to say no to unwanted sexual advances and shall include information about verbal, physical, and visual sexual harassment, including without limitation nonconsensual sexual advances, nonconsensual physical sexual contact, and rape by an acquaintance. The course material and instruction shall contain methods of preventing sexual assault by an acquaintance, including exercising good judgment and avoiding behavior that impairs one's judgment. The course material and instruction shall emphasize personal accountability and respect for others and shall also encourage youth to resist negative peer pressure. The course material and instruction shall inform pupils of the potential legal consequences of sexual assault by an acquaintance. Specifically, pupils shall be advised that it is unlawful to touch an intimate part of another person as specified in the Criminal Code of 1961." There is more to the actual bill, but these portions show that both candidates are specifying the portions of the bill that they wish to focus on and both candidates ignored the portions of the bill that their opponents wish to focus on. The McCain campaign did not add the unwanted touching portion of the bill to their video ad and the Obama campaign did not acknowledge the focus of the bill as stated in the news release and in the very first paragraph of Senate Bill 99. Neither candidate lied, neither candidate distorted, and yet their has been much ink dedicated to this topic, when a simple reading of the bill itself could have answered all the questions. The McCain ad is factually correct and the Obama campaigning trying to deny it so vehemently, simply gave people a reason to look into the actual bill itself instead of just chalking the ad up to politics. The Obama campaign should have left this alone because now people will be shown the bill, which does, indeed, allow for children as young as 6 to be taught sexual educations and that while it did not become law, Barack Obama did, in fact, support the bill. Others discussing this, via memeorandum: Townhall.com, The Corner, Althouse, Eduwonk, QandO, pandagon.net, Weekly Standard, The Other McCain and Patterico's Pontifications . |
| Next On The Sarah Palin-Palooza Agenda: Tanning Beds Posted: 16 Sep 2008 12:24 AM CDT The next segment of the PalinPalozza, which seems to be a big deal to some, is Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska and republican VP candidate, has a tanning bed in the Governors mansion. Of course she paid for the used machine out of her own money. A used tanning machine for those long days which sometimes occur with 22 hours of darkness in Alaska as Matthew Yglesias points out. More on exactly when and where and how long darkness hits Alaska can be found at Alaska.com for the technical info of Alaskan weather. This tanning bed seems to be the hot topic for members of the far left progressive blogosphere with some, such as TPMMuckraker and US Magazine, quoting prices of new tanning machines as an example of how most people cannot afford a tanning bed in their home. Palin bought her tanning bed as surplus from a local athletic club. The news of Palin's luxurious purchase -- beds can cost as much as $35,000 -- presents a sharp contrast to the blue-collar persona she projects on the campaign trail. This is countered by conservative Jules Crittenden who points out that according to pricing for used machines, found here, most cost between $1,000 and $4,000 these days and a spokesman for the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Roger Wetherell, tells Politico "She paid for it with her own money." I am guessing someone will insist on a long drawn out investigation demanding to know the make, model and year of this tanning bed so it can be determined exactly how much of Palin's money she spent on her bed. NewsBusters provides another link to another site which sells used tanning beds for about $2,000 but better yet, they have dubbed this whole scandal appropriately as "CopperGate". . |
| Daily Kos' Latest Strategy for Defending Their 9/11 Cartoon: It Never Happened -- AN UPDATE Posted: 15 Sep 2008 07:16 PM CDT    A note From Radarsite: "...the radar guy faked you out, dude..."There is nothing I would like more than to drop this whole miserable episode with Daily Kos and its rabid supporters, but they just won't let me. The DK has now deleted this post and all references to it from their site. Thus, it never happened. It was a made-up story, a Republican ploy, another Republican ploy. The Daily Kos never did such a thing. All of those outraged articles that flooded the Internet were only condemning a chimera. Those (literally) thousands of readers who descended on Radarsite to voice their disgust about that horrific piece were all suffering from some form of mass hysteria. And again, those (literally) thousands of sincere Democrats who came onto Radarsite specifically to unequivocally distance themselves from this obscenity were merely victims of a clever Republican ruse. There was never any such cartoon, and there was never any such posting. [Update: See screenshot above] As difficult as it may be, I'll not succumb to the temptation to use that Orwellian quote about 'he who controls the past...' But I will say this. There are no limits to the extremes of our adversaries, no moral boundaries, no traces of decency, and finally, no sense of shame. None at all. Here, then, once again our some sample comments lifted from the comments thread at the History Channel Boards. This is the mentality of the enemy.- rg that "quote" is NOT ON THEIR WEBSITE And: the fact that those conservatives would MAKE UP STORIES and attribute them to Kos, and then rag on him for days for stuff he didn't write.. that is really too much!! |
| More On Obama Trying To Interfere With Iraq Negotiations Posted: 15 Sep 2008 04:24 PM CDT [Update below original post] McCain weighs in on this issue. I added this as an update to a the previous piece where we saw that Barack Obama tried to interfere in U.S./Iraqi negotiations while he was on his supposed fact finding junket, with quotes from Iraqi officials giving the details of the extent of what Obama did and how he deliberately tried to stall troop withdrawals for his own political gain. Now, via email, Move America Forward has issued their news release regarding Obama's actions. TO STOP U.S. TROOP WITHDRAWAL FROM IRAQ DISGRACEFUL ACTION TAKEN IN IRAQ FOR POLITICAL ADVANTAGE! (SACRAMENTO) -- Move America Forward's political action committee, MAF Freedom PAC, today condemned Barack Obama for "putting his own political objectives ahead of the safety of U.S. military personnel in Iraq." Is MAF awesome or what???? Yeah Melanie!! [Update] McCain weighs in, via The Corner: McCain spokesman Randy Scheunemann stated as follows:
. |
| Atlantic Magazine Considers Lawsuit Against Photographer Who Doctored McCain Photos Posted: 15 Sep 2008 02:16 PM CDT Jill Greenberg, hired by the Atlantic Magazine to shoot photographs of John McCain, deliberately manipulated out-takes from the photo session. Today the Atlantic is apologizing to McCain and considering suit against the photographer. Today Fox News reports the Atlantic Monthly Editor James Bennet, is drafting and sending an apology letter to John McCain and stating that Greenberg behaved improperly, stating "She has violated the terms of our agreement with her, of our contract with her so we're taking steps. So we're looking into what steps we can see to do something about that." Bennet asserts the magazine is also considering a lawsuit against Greenberg. Bennet continues on to say, "I mean this photographer went in there under our auspices to take a cover shot for us … but while she was there she behaved in an incredibly underhanded and unprofessional way."        Greenberg said that the cover shot for The Atlantic article was manipulated to leave McCain's eyes red and skin looking bad. But Bennet said the magazine stands by the picture that made the front cover. He said the artwork went through editors' hands before going to print, and it is accompanied by "a terrific story" that is a comprehensive look at McCain's foreign policy. Greenberg's site is called "manipulator" and the doctored photos in question can be found by clicking and continuing to hit refresh which provides more pictures when the page reloads. A variety of the manipulated photos can also be found at ImageBam. . |
| Rasmussen: Majority Thinks McCain, Biden, Prepared To Be President Posted: 15 Sep 2008 01:28 PM CDT The good news for John McCain's campaign is that he is top of the ticket for the GOP and 63 percent of American voters believe John McCain is prepared to be the president. The bad news for Barack Obama's campaign is that the man on the Democratic ticket that earns a majority of voters confidence in the preparedness to be president, is the man on the bottom of the ticket, Joe Biden, whom 50 percent of Americans think is prepared. Sixty-three percent (63%) of voters say John McCain is prepared right now to be president, and 50% say the same thing about Democratic vice presidential candidate Joseph Biden. Forty-four percent (44%) say the man at the top of Biden's ticket, Barack Obama, is ready, but 45% say he isn't. Independents and those not affiliated with a specific party:
Considering the majority seems to think the Democratic ticket should be reversed, this bodes well for the McCain/Palin ticket. The good news for Democrats is in the vice presidential numbers. While 71% of Democratic voters think Biden is ready to be president, so do 26% of Republicans and 49% of unaffiliated voters. Thirty-one percent (31%) of unaffiliateds say Biden is not prepared. I don't find the vice presidential numbers very worrisome because it is the top of the ticket that voters vote for on election day and it seems that people are starting to understand that when comparing the two men at the top of their respective tickets, John McCain and Barack Obama, it is like comparing an adult with life's experience to a child that has none yet. . |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Wake up America To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email Delivery powered by FeedBurner |
Inbox too full?  Subscribe to the feed version of Wake up America in a feed reader. | |
| If you prefer to unsubscribe via postal mail, write to: Wake up America, c/o FeedBurner, 20 W Kinzie, 9th Floor, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
No comments:
Post a Comment
We are very happy to hear your comments. However since this is NOT an adult site, we must authorize comments to prevent the perverts from sending junk to it. Sorry for the inconvenience but it is necessary, unfortunately.