Citizens for Change

Fact-Checking the End Game Smears

2008-10-29T09:07:00.008-04:00

As the election cycle enters its final week, the lies coming from the McCain campaign are multiplying both in their numbers and in their sleaziness. Chances are you've heard one or more of the ones listed here. Please click the links for further information if you have any doubts on just how false they really are.

ALSO, please forward this information to everyone and anyone! We need to get the truth out. We can't afford to elect "leaders" who will say or do anything just to hold power and further their own political ambitions. Now is the time to hold them accountable. Once they are in office, there is little we can do to stop them (see: George W. Bush).

Driver's Licenses, Social Security, and Healthcare for Immigrants

Ad accuses Obama of wanting to give driver's licenses to illegals (including terrorists), healthcare to illegals, social security to illegals...

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/a_license_to_kill.html

"Hardly a word in the ad is true. … despicable terror-pandering of the highest order."

Obama is Going to Take Away the Guns!

An ad accuses Obama of voting to "deny citizens the right of self-protection", and that he would make the homeowner a criminal in cases of home-invasion. All he voted for was to uphold a previously existing local gun ban in a small town, which had a maximum penalty of a $750 fine.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/the_rifle_associations_true_story.html

Obama's Tax Plan is Bad for Small Business Owners

In fact, it would benefit the vast majority of small businesses.

Obama is a "Socialist" who wants to "Spread the Wealth"

Ridiculous right-wing lying and fear-mongering at its finest.

Obama and "congressional liberals" want to raise taxes on families making $42,000

It's just false. This is not now and never has been part of Obama's tax proposals.

Obama voted 94 times to increase taxes.

Again, not even close.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/tax_tally_trickery.html

McCain and Palin are Socialists!

Actually this one is true. Well, in as much as, they support the same type of "wealth-spreading" policies that they are accusing Barack Obama of.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27424491/

Joe the Plumber

2008-10-18T15:09:00.004-04:00

Who should "Joe the Plumber" be voting for on election day?

A big deal has been made about this guy who McCain brought up during the third presidential debate. McCain is attempting to say that Obama is going to raise taxes on this poor plumber; that Obama is going to take away his hard-earned money and "spread his wealth around".

But it's all a lot of nonsense. Here's why:

1) First of all, the real Joe reportedly earns about $40,000 a year. He would be much better off financially under Obama’s tax plan.

2) Joe is thinking of buying a business that is valued at around $250,000. The value of any business is always far greater than its annual revenues, because the value takes into account potential for future growth and profit. In this case, tax records show that this business did around $100,000 in revenues last year. The actual taxable income would have been even less. So even after buying the business, Joe would be much better off under Obama’s plan.

3) Let’s assume that Joe turns out to be a business genius, and actually grows the business to where its taxable income exceeds $250,000 a year. Here’s how the tax would work. Let’s say Joe manages to earn a taxable profit of $280,000 in a given year (a number given by Joe, which seems like a really big "if"). Obama’s tax increase would only affect the amount in excess of $250,000, or in this case, $30,000. That portion would have the tax rate increased from the current 36% all the way up to … 39%. Yes that's right, an increase of 3%. So on his total profit of $280,000, he would see an increase in his taxes of only $900. (And that increase would likely be more than offset by various tax credits that Obama’s plan proposes specifically to help small business owners.)

Not factored into any of this is the idea that, since most middle-class families will see their taxes either stay the same or decrease under Obama's plan, they will have more money to spend on plumbers. Joe’s business will be doing much better.

CNN's financial analysts concluded that fewer than 2% of small businesses would pay higher taxes under Obama's plan. McCain is once again falsely trying to convince voters – including small business owners – that they would somehow be better off under his tax plans. They would not. Joe and others like him will be cutting off their noses to spite their face if they vote McCain.

Sources:

CNNMoney.com: Fact-Check: Plumber Joe's Taxes
Factcheck.org: Fact-Checking Debate # 3
Factcheck.org: Obama's Welfare

What is Obama's connection to ACORN?

2008-10-15T20:42:00.015-04:00

A group known as ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) has recently been linked to several incidences of voter registration fraud. Back in the 90's, while still an attorney, Barack Obama tried a case on behalf of this group. He joined the U.S. justice department in trying to get the state of Illinois to follow the law and allow people to register at their local DMV office. Pretty radical, huh?

So if you follow the line of thinking that the McCain/Palin campaign would like you to follow: Since Obama once did some work for ACORN, he is obviously now guilty of voter registration fraud.

Except that there is no current link between the Obama campaign and ACORN. During the primary season, they did enlist a subsidiary of ACORN to help get out the vote. But that was during the primaries. During the general election, the Obama campaign has been managing their own massive voter registration effort, with their own offices and paid staff in every state.

Why This is NOT a Big Deal

There are several reasons why this issue is being completely overblown, apart from the obvious lack of connection to the Obama campaign.

As this web site states very succinctly: "It’s completely inconsequential if some fake names are registered to vote. Why? Because a fake name can’t actually vote."

There is a big difference between "voter registration fraud" (like ACORN is accused of) and "Voter Fraud" (like the GOP was guilty of in Ohio in 2004 and Florida in 2000). By itself, turning in false registrations has no effect on the election outcome; it just gums up the registration boards in trying to weed out all the bad registrations.

ACORN's problem stems largely from the fact that they pay people to turn in voter registrations. The more registrations you gather, the more you earn. Particularly for low-income people, this is a heavy incentive to create bad registrations. All evidence gathered against ACORN to date suggests that the problem stemmed from individual workers who turned in fake forms in an effort to get paid for work they didn’t do, and it had nothing to do with trying to stuff ballot boxes by voting fraudulently.

For these bad registrations to effect the election outcome, several things would have had to go horribly wrong. First, all the verification process at the registration board would have had to fail miserably. The fact that they had invalid names, addresses, drivers licenses and/or social security numbers, would somehow have to have gone completely unnoticed.

Next, someone would've had to show up to vote on election day with a crate of fake ID's "proving" that they were these fake voters... you know, Mickey Mouse, Hulk Hogan, Tony Romo, etc.

It was never going to happen.

But Wait, There's More!

Most of the instances of bad registrations that have been turned up were discovered by ACORN itself, and then brought to the attention of the state registration board in question. Someone on the right apparently got a hold of this story and decided to run to the media with it, accusing ACORN of fraud. In reality, ACORN is as much the victim here as anything, as they paid people who turned in useless registration forms.

There is no indication that anyone was going to try to "steal votes" by voting under multiple assumed names at the polls. All these individuals were stealing was money from ACORN.

SOURCES:

Barack Obama Never Organized with ACORN
The Truth About ACORN
The Guardian: The Republican Voter Fraud Hoax
Acorn.org: ACORN Responds to Sen. McCain's Desperate Attack
MSNBC.com: ACORN Controversy - Stupid Joke or Fraud?
CNN.com: Ex-ACORN Worker Confesses

An enlightening video from MSNBC.com:

Obama wants sex-ed for kindergarteners?!?

2008-10-13T14:56:00.005-04:00

This has been simultaneously one of the more laughable and one of the more despicable attack ads created by the McCain campaign. The facts are below, but ask yourself: Is someone who would stoop this low, simply to satisfy his own political ambition, really qualified to be the leader of the free world?

The piece of legislation that the McCain ad is referring to called for "age-appropriate" sex education all the way from K thru 12. What this meant specifically in regards to younger children was simply teaching them how to recognize inappropriate touching and avoid sexual predators. It had nothing to do with teaching them "comprehensive sex education" on topics like male/female physiology, intercourse, etc.

As such, the bill would probably be supported by most parents; assuming most parents don't want their children to be molested by strangers. But even the odd few that had some sort of objection would have had the option to opt-out of this curriculum for their children!

(I wonder if the Obama campaign considered responding with an ad suggesting that McCain supports child molestation, since he is apparently against this legislation.)

Source: FactCheck.org

Foreign Policy: McCain or Obama

2008-10-11T23:42:00.010-04:00

It seems to be a commonly held belief that John McCain would be a better commander-in-chief for our troops than Barack Obama, and that McCain's foreign policy would be better for our country. Throughout the campaign, polls have continually given an edge to McCain in both of these categories. This article calls into question those assumptions, and suggests that they are dangerously inaccurate.

Commander in Chief

No one will argue that John McCain's service to this country as a member of our armed forces is unquestionably heroic. The time that he spent as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, even being tortured, is without question both harrowing and tragic.

But does that service truly qualify him to be commander-in-chief? It's a far cry from being a fighter pilot to being a Naval Admiral. Not to mention, President of the United States.

There is much to worry about in McCain's record. There is of course his lackluster academic record (he finished 894 out of 899 students in his class at the naval academy). More importantly, he is widely reported as being quick to anger, and has been his whole life. He frequently puts his own personal interests above anything else (despite his marketing campaign touting the phrase "country first").

McCain says he "knows how to win a war". How did he come by this information, and why has he been holding it secret for so long? Five years in a POW camp does not teach one how to win a war... especially when it comes during a war that we lost. Again, this is not said to denigrate his service to the country, but merely to point out that that service does not necessarily equate to the knowledge required to be President.

A good commander-in-chief surrounds himself with good advisors. He is someone who is highly intellectual, slow to anger, doesn't make rash decisions, and can internalize and consider many different and competing factors in order to make a military decision. All evidence of the two candidates and their personalities suggests that this is a pretty good description of Barack Obama. Moreover, it is exactly the opposite of John McCain.

It can be further argued that his military experience (including his time as a POW) makes him even less qualified, because it colors his perceptions in many negative ways. Not to mention that his knowledge and experience is four decades old, and is largely not applicable to the world of today.

Foreign Policy

The Bush administration's foreign policy has been nothing short of disastrous. It has done absolutely nothing to address the issue of the proliferation of Islamic extremism; and in most cases has made it far worse. These policies have put us in a bad position in the world: not only are we hated more than ever by our enemies, but now even our friends look at us with a high level of distrust, because our actions have been so erratic and inconsistent.

There is every indication that McCain's foreign policy will be a complete continuation of the Bush administration's.

McCain likes to make fun because Obama said he would actually sit down and talk with the leaders of some countries: places like Iran, Syria, Pakistan, etc. What a strange concept! Actually talking to people and trying to understand our differences – you know, like adult human beings. The Bush-McCain policy is to treat diplomacy like we are a first grade teacher, and the other country is the unruly child: tell them to go sit in a corner and refuse to talk to them until they agree to behave. The only problem is that those other countries think they deserve more respect than that. And truth be told, they are probably right.

Don't Take OUR Word For It!!

The following quotes are from people who know John McCain personally and have worked with him.

"In the matters of national security policy making, it's a matter of understanding risk. It's a matter of gauging your opponents and it's a matter of being held accountable. John McCain's never done any of that in his official positions. ... Having served as a fighter pilot doesn't prepare you to be commander in chief in terms of dealing with the national strategic issues that are involved." – Ret. General Wesley Clarke, June 2008

"The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He is erratic. He is hotheaded." – Republican Sen. Thad Cochran of Mississippi

"McCain's temper would place this country at risk in international affairs, and the world perhaps in danger. In my mind, it should disqualify him." – former Republican Sen. Bob Smith of New Hampshire

"He's going to be Bush on steroids. His hawkish views now are very dangerous. He puts military at the top of foreign policy rather than diplomacy, just like George Bush does. He and other neoconservatives are dedicated to converting the world to democracy and free markets, and they want to do it through the barrel of a gun." – ret. Brigadier General John H. Johns, who studied with McCain at the War College

"I don't think that [being a POW] is a special qualification for being president of the United States. In some respects, I'm not sure that's the kind of character I want sitting in the Oval Office. I'm not sure that much time in a prisoner-of-war status doesn't do something to you. Doesn't do something to you psychologically, doesn't do something to you that might make you a little more volatile, a little less apt to listen to reason, a little more inclined to be volcanic in your temperament." – Larry Wilkerson, questioning why McCain's patriotism and sacrifice as a POW has been elevated as his top qualification to be commander in chief.

Sources:

Associated Press – John McCain lacks command experience
Rolling Stone – Make Believe Maverick

Email: Is Barack Funded by Ties to the Middle East?

2008-10-11T21:56:00.007-04:00

One of the more recent email hoaxes to make the rounds regarding Barack Obama calls into question any number of items regarding his background, most notably things like "how did he pay for college and grad school?", "How did he buy his house?", and others.

Other sites have already done a decent job of debunking this email, including this article from Snopes.com, and our article on Tony Rezko (which cites further verifiable sources). We won't bother to rehash that information here; you can check it yourself.

However, more recent versions of the email have had some additional points added to them that are worth addressing separately.

First, the email mentions an out-of-context quote of Obama saying, "my Muslim faith". This quote was part of an interview with George Stephanopoulos. During the interview, Obama was talking about conservative smears against him insinuating that he is a Muslim, and how (remarkably) the McCain campaign has not brought up the issue. When heard or read in context, the intended meaning of the quote becomes clear.

(Apart from which, all rumors about Obama secretly being a Muslim have been widely researched and debunked. Obama is a long-time Christian, was never a Muslim, and did not attend a Islamic religious school when growing up. Here is one source; there are many others you can find via Google.)

The last point of note is in reference to his close advisor, Valerie Jarrett. It says that she was born in Iran – seemingly intending to lead the reader to the conclusion that all Iranians are Muslims and/or terrorists and cannot to be trusted. Leaving aside the racist undertones, the statement is extraordinarily misleading because of what it doesn't tell you. Ms. Jarrett WAS in fact born in Iran... to American parents! Her father was a medical doctor, and worked for several years back in the 1950's at a hospital for the poor in Iran, long before that country was part of the "axis of evil".

Here is an excellent article on Valerie Jarrett. It is long, but pages 4-5 provide the relevant information regarding the above claim.

A Game-Changer for John McCain?

2008-10-09T16:08:00.005-04:00

If John McCain really wanted a game changer, he should call a national press conference and make a statement like the following. All of his personal attacks are ultimately going to backfire, since they are largely without merit. But saying something like this would make people sit up and take notice, and he'd earn a LOT of respect from many people on all sides.

My friends, as you are all well aware, my opponent is the first African-American to compete as a major party nominee. Now there's been a lot of talk about race in this campaign. I'm here to tell you that racial accusations, personal attacks and fear mongering have to stop NOW. We've looked into the Bill Ayers association, and it appears harmless; Senator Obama is by no means a terrorist sympathizer. We've examined his comments regarding his former pastor Reverend Wright, and do not feel that the reverend's tainted views in any way reflect those of senator Obama.

So let's throw out the question of character, and let's talk about the issues. The American people have spoken loud and clear that that's what they want to talk about. I've heard some hateful and even dangerous things from audience members of my rallies recently, and frankly I won't stand for it. My opponent is a good man, an intelligent man, and he loves America like you and me, but he lacks the experience and the plan that will help the American people. I believe Senator Obama is wrong on his tax plan, wrong on the economy, wrong on healthcare, wrong on energy, and wrong on foreign policy. And here's why:

{Blah Blah Blah}

So in conclusion, I don't want you to vote for me because you are afraid to vote for a black man. That isn't what this country is about. I want you to vote for me because you know that I'll be the better leader, and that I have the better plan to move our country forward. And that's the case I'm going to make to you between now and election day.

Now THAT would be a game changer. His numbers would skyrocket overnight. Thank god he'll never do it.

The White (Racist) Vote

2008-10-09T00:41:00.004-04:00

What role will race and racism play in determining the outcome of this election? If we can find more smart people like this guy, none at all. If you or someone you know are thinking of not voting for Obama because he is black, you owe it to yourself to dedicate 7 minutes to watching this video:

Obama and the Slum Lord

2008-10-09T00:10:00.004-04:00

This is another topic that was brought up originally by the Clinton campaign during the primaries. There was lots and lots of innuendo, but after thorough investigation... it all amounted to nothing.

It can be summed up thusly:

Tony Rezko was a powerful real estate developer in Chicago.
He was an early financial supporter of Obama.
Obama bought a house next to a piece of land that was bought by Rezko. Obama later bought part of that lot from the Rezko's, at market value.
Rezko never requested nor received political favors from Obama, save one: Obama gave an internship to a friend's son at Rezko's request.
Many years later, Rezko was indicted for crimes that we have no reason to believe Obama was aware of. Obama severed ties at that point.

Nothing illegal or improper has ever been found... and don't think for a moment that the GOP war machine hasn't been digging HARD. Yes, he received campaign contributions from the man, just as he has from millions of others. He has been forthright in stating that the real estate deal to buy his house -- while again not improper -- was a "boneheaded move" simply because of the conclusions people might draw.

Notably missing from ALL the information on ties between Obama and Rezko is even a HINT that there was some sort of wrong-doing or quid-pro-quo from Obama in return for the campaign financing help that he received. It is widely believed that Rezko's main reason for supporting Obama was that it made him feel important/connected to be close to a political candidate. It was merely a status symbol for him.

Sources:

Obama Voted Against Our Troops!

2008-10-08T22:17:00.006-04:00

The McCain campaign threw this out on a commercial a few months ago. They recently trotted it out again, this time by Cindy McCain saying that Senator Obama had voted against "funding for my son".

Senator Obama has voted for troop funding at least 10 times since he's been in the senate. The GOP is referring to a single vote that took place in 2007. On this particular bill, the democrats had added a non-binding call to withdraw the troops from Iraq. Senator Obama voted for that version of the bill. John McCain (who did not vote for or against the measure) urged President Bush to veto the bill, which he did.

(As such, it would also be true to say that "John McCain urged a veto of funding for our troops." Which would be just as misleading as their claim about Obama.)

When the bill came back through the senate, Obama this time voted against it in protest. When he did so, he sent out a press release explaing his decision. In read in part: "We must fund our troops. But we owe them something more. We owe them a clear, prudent plan to relieve them of the burden of policing someone else's civil war."

Sources:

FactCheck.org: The Truth on Troop Support
CNN.com: Did Obama vote to cut funds for troops?

Does Liberalism = Socialism?

2008-10-08T11:40:00.007-04:00

The following was taken from comments posted on FoxNews.com after the second presidential debate. It was so refreshing to see a rational thinker on that site, that we decided to repost it here. (Our apologies to the author!)
As a critical Independent, I’d like to give my lock-step Republican friends out there some advice. When you refer to liberals as "commies" or "socialists," every subsequent word or point you try to make will have little validity in the minds of thinking people. By recklessly labeling people who support universal health, for instance, as "commies" or "socialists" YOU end up sounding like an idiot and an unbalanced extremist.

The U.S. often takes a socialist approach when it comes to the well-being of our citizens. If you support your local police force, your local fire fighters, your public library, does that make YOU a socialist? If you drive on public roads or use the U.S. Post Office, does that make YOU a commie? If you send your kids to public schools, does that make YOU an enemy of capitalism? Of course not... so stop pretending that we’re incapable of supporting capitalism AND some social programs at the same time. We always have.

Furthermore, most of the emotional ties we have to the terms "socialist" and "commie" are Soviet in nature, which is what makes those terms so derogatory... but nonsensical too. Again, supporting universal health care does NOT make a person a Soviet sympathizer.

And while you're chilling out on those terms, also consider how ridiculous you sound when you call Obama a "Muslim extremist" or a "Chicago thug" or the "Anti-Christ", or liken Obama to Hitler. This kind of talk is normally limited to idiots that get their news from manipulative email blasts and extreme pundits, but that's a sizable contingency. Disagreeing with a politician's politics is one thing, but embracing and perpetuating hatred is another. Again, as soon as you refer to Obama as a Muslim or a thug, your credibility as a thinker gets shot down and ultimately devalues any good arguments you might be able to make. In an effort to sway Independents, please stop with this silliness... you’ll have no hope otherwise. Democrats are not innocent either... self-described liberals referring to Republicans as “Nazis” are jerks too.

Did Obama Vote 94 Times to Increase Taxes?

2008-10-08T11:00:00.005-04:00

Yes... if you are John McCain and you live in la-la land. McCain & Company have been repeating this highly misleading statistic quite often in recent days, trying to scare voters away from Obama. He even repeated it during the second presidential debate... all this in spite of the truth.

FactCheck.org did an in-depth analysis of the 94 votes in question, and came up with the following findings:

Twenty-three votes were for measures that would have produced no tax increase at all; they were against proposed tax cuts.
Seven of the votes were in favor of measures that would have lowered taxes for many, while raising them on a relative few, either corporations or affluent individuals.
Eleven votes would have increased taxes on those making more than $1 million a year – in order to fund programs such as Head Start and school nutrition programs, or veterans’ health care.
The GOP sometimes counted two, three and even four votes on the same measure. We found their tally included a total of 17 votes on seven measures, effectively padding their total by 10.
The majority of the 94 votes – 53 of them, including some mentioned above – were on budget measures, not tax bills, and would not have resulted in any tax change. Four other votes were non-binding motions related to conference report negotiations.

A closer look reveals that Obama has voted consistently to restore higher tax rates on upper-income taxpayers but not on middle- or low-income workers. That's consistent with what he's said he'd do as president, which is to raise taxes only on those making more than $250,000 a year.

Elitism

2008-10-08T10:18:00.008-04:00

Ask yourself: how has "elitism" become a bad word in American politics? There is simply no other walk of life in which extraordinary talent and rigorous training are denigrated. We want elite pilots to fly our planes, elite troops to undertake our most critical missions, elite athletes to represent us in competition and elite scientists to devote the most productive years of their lives to curing our diseases. But when it comes to choosing the people whose thoughts and actions will decide the fates of millions, we suddenly want someone just like us, someone fit to have a beer with, someone down-to-earth – in fact, almost anyone, provided that he or she doesn't seem too intelligent or well educated.

The problem, as far as our political process is concerned, is that half the electorate revels in Sarah Palin's lack of intellectual qualifications. When it comes to politics, there is a mad love of mediocrity in this country. "They think they're better than you!" is the refrain that (highly competent and cynical) Republican strategists have set loose among the crowd, and the crowd has grown drunk on it once again. "Sarah Palin is an ordinary person!" Yes, all too ordinary.

We have all now witnessed apparently sentient human beings saying things like, "I'm voting for Sarah because she's a mom. She knows what it's like to be a mom." Such sentiments suggest an uncanny detachment from the real problems of today. The next administration must immediately confront issues like nuclear proliferation, ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (and covert wars elsewhere), global climate change, a convulsing economy, Russian belligerence, the rise of China, emerging epidemics, Islamic radicalism on a hundred fronts, a defunct United Nations, the deterioration of American schools, failures of energy, infrastructure and Internet security … the list is long, and Sarah Palin does not seem competent even to rank these items in order of importance, much less address any one of them.

Why are people so excited about "folksy people" in government? We're talking about the presidency of the United States here! Do you really want someone who is an "average joe six-pack" to be in that position? We've had that for the last eight years, and look where it's gotten us: budget deficits, increased spending, economic downturn, and horrible foreign policy (even countries that were once staunch allies now look at us with distrust and disdain).

The President of the United States of America should not be an average person. I want him (or her) to be intellectually superior. I want him to have excellent judgment, and be incredibly insightful. He should be a strong leader; one who inspires those around him to new levels of greatness; inspires them to do better things than even they ever thought they could. The president should not be someone who is quick to anger, and who changes his political leanings to suit the mood of his party (see: John McCain). The president should not be someone who is petty and vindictive, and who will use his power to settle personal scores (see: Sarah Palin).

As always, John Stewart says it best. Fast forward to time index 7:10 on the following video.

Reverend Wright

2008-10-07T20:33:00.004-04:00

This is an issue that Sen. Obama thoroughly addressed during the primaries, all questions were answered satisfactorily, and the subject was laid to rest. But we're just guessing that it is going to come back up again, since the McCain campaign is trying to sling as much mud as possible in a desperate attempt to regain some footing.

Back in March when this topic was all the rage, Obama gave a speech that clearly addressed not just the issue of his relationship with Reverend Wright, and his feelings about the Reverend's comments, but also the broader issue of race relations in America.

If you have ANY concerns about this issue, you owe it to yourself to listen to this entire speech. (You can also read the transcript, which will be faster, but you may miss some of the nuances. And if you have a really really short attention span, at least listen to the 5 minute section that goes from 6:00 to 11:00.) Either way, just don't make the wrong choice for president because you were unwilling to devote 30 minutes of your time to decide the future of our country.

How well do we really know Barack Obama?

2008-10-07T20:07:00.004-04:00

John McCain and Sarah Palin are trying to convince you that you don't know the "real" Barack Obama. "Who is Barack Obama?" they ask. They are trying to scare you into thinking that he's a complete unknown.

If you feel that you don't know him, either you haven't been listening, or you have been actively trying to ignore him. Barack Obama has participated in nearly 200 town-hall type meetings with prospective voters. He regularly gives speeches that give unique insights into his character, his ideals, and his vision for America. His web site is chock full of information including his plan on every significant topic. He even answers reporters' questions on a frequent basis (unlike Sarah Palin, who the Republican party wisely keeps locked in a cage unless there are teleprompters in front of her).

Below are several sample speeches that should give you excellent insight into the man and the makeup of his character. If you get on YouTube.com and search for "Barack Obama Speeches", you'll find just about every word the man has ever uttered at your fingertips. Then you'll know him. Odds are, you'll also come to the same conclusion as millions of your fellow Americans: this is the leader and visionary that America needs, right now.

Barack's speech on race relations in America, directly addressing his ties with Rev. Jeremiah Wright (Link to Video, Link to Transcript)
Barack on America's Role in the World (Link to Video, Link to Transcript)
Barack Campaign Commercial on Changing our Economic Future (Video)
Barack's 2008 Convention Speech (Link to Video)

Some of the speeches are long, but they are worth the time investment. This is the most important election in many of our lifetimes, and you need to know who you are voting for.

Does Obama Hang Out with Terrorists?

2008-10-07T17:56:00.006-04:00

This claim was sufficiently debunked during the primary elections, which should have been the end of it. But the McCain campaign has recently trotted it out again in a desperate attempt to smear Sen. Obama and call his judgment into question. In particular, Sarah Palin has mentioned it at nearly every public appearance she has made in the past week.

Here are the facts. The man in question, Bill Ayers, was a member of a radical organization in the 1960's (when Obama was a young child) that protested the Vietnam war. Today he is a respected professor of education at the University of Illinois. To refer to him in the present tense as a terrorist is highly deceiving. In any case, Obama's actual ties to the man are tenuous at best:

They lived in the same neighborhood in Chicago.
They once served on the board of a charitable organization in the late 90's.
Obama once attended a democratic fundraiser at Ayers' home -- 12 years ago -- long after Ayers had turned his life around and become an educator.

That's it. They are not friends or "pals"; barely acquaintances.

What's even more interesting about the Sarah Palin claim is that she said she was simply quoting an article in the New York Times. But that article clearly debunks the "terrorist pal" theory:

"The two men do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr. Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers, whom he has called 'somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8.' "

So either Sarah Palin is purposely lying, or she simply can't read and process information as well as the average sixth grader. You decide which is worse.

UPDATE 10/12: We've added a few more sources below, all debunking the claims being made by McCain/Palin. What's more disturbing is that their ads continue to run on TV, radio, and the Internet, despite it having now been shown conclusively that it is full of lies.

Additional Sources:

FactCheck.org: "He Lied" About Bill Ayers?
CNN: Is Obama Palling Around with Terrorists?
Newsweek: Assessing Ayers: Innuendo vs. Information

Is Palin Really Qualified?

2008-10-07T14:10:00.000-04:00

Let's try a simple logic exercise.

Imagine you are on the Board of Directors for a billion-dollar, multi-national company. It is your job to select the next CEO for your company. You have been given two candidates from which to choose. Candidate #1 is the president of his current company, which he founded. Candidate #2 never even reached VP level; in fact, his current title is merely Regional Director.

If you were to base your choice solely on this information, it might appear that Candidate # 1 is more qualified. Surely you want a president over a regional director, right? Maybe. But what if you were given the following additional information:

Candidate # 1 is the president of a small company with 5 employees. It is a moderately successful printing and publishing company located in a rural town. They do about $250,000 in annual sales.
Candidate # 2 is the director of regional operations for a large company whose primary businesses include manufacturing, retail sales, and business services. He oversees the efforts of more than 2500 employees at 15 sites in his region, with a combined annual budget of slightly less than $300 million.

Now who do you think is more qualified to take over your company? Based on the expanded information, one is led to the unmistakable conclusion that you want Candidate # 2.

So the next time someone tells you that an Alaskan governor is better prepared to be president than an Illinois senator, make sure they have considered these statistics:

Alaska:

Population: about 700,000
Gross state product: about $40 billion.
Primary Industries: Oil. (More than 80% of the state's revenues are derived from petroleum extraction. The gross state product is also a somewhat misleading number as a result.)

Illinois:

Population: about 13,000,000
Gross state product: about $600 billion.
Primary Industries: Chemical manufacturing, food manufacturing, machinery, fabricated metal products, plastics and rubber products, transportation equipment, computer and electronic products, financial services, publishing, petroleum, and coal.

In our example, Candidate # 1 is not qualified to take over a billion dollar company. Just as Sarah Palin is not qualified to take over the United States of America.

The Purpose of this Site

2008-10-07T11:34:00.004-04:00

We're tired of all the lies, distortions, and unfounded claims being made by political candidates on the right, and so we're going to fight back with the truth.

We're not out to tell you who you should vote for. Our candidate of choice is pretty clear, but you should have the right to choose the candidate who you think is best. We simply want to make sure you know the whole truth. The GOP relies on being able to spoon-feed false truths and soundbites to people who don't do any fact-checking. We want you to have the facts, and decide who's right for yourself.

You won't have to take our word for it. Our claims will be backed up by links to information from reputable sources, such as articles in the main stream media, recognized non-partisan fact-checking web sites, actual video clips of events, etc.

Political candidates should be held to a higher level of accountability, and yet they are allowed to make baseless and unfounded allegations with no repercussions whatsoever. That stops now. If John McCain wants to wage a campaign based on issues and substance, we would welcome that. But character assassinations and misleading claims need to be called out and corrected. And that's why we're here.

It is important that everyone know the truth, and the Internet is the quickest way to get the truth out. Don't let this campaign be decided by lies and negativity like so many have before. Please forward this information to everybody and anybody.

Spread the truth. We need real change in Washington.