Obama’s Fairness Doctrine, Iran/Russia gas cartel and Palin, some “character” concerns, race-baiting for Dummies, and Secret Service finds NO ONE yelled “kill him”

While pundits talk endlessly and badly about the debate (that CNN panel is ridiculous – isn’t anyone embarrassed to be there? They should be), I thought I’d look around and see what else is out there.

1)The NYPost talks about Joe the Plumber today. It calls Obama’s “economic plan” a wealth redistribution scheme.

Obama’s plan isn’t about sinking hooks into Wall Street CEOs and other fat cats, as he usually says. Fact is, there’s not enough of them to raise the cash necessary to finance his other grand plans.

No, to do that, he’ll have to go after ambitious working-class guys like Wurzelbacher – who’s been a plumber for 15 years and is looking to better himself and his family while just maybe creating a few jobs.
————–
Heretofore, Obama has sought to paint himself as a tax-cutter – claiming he’ll slash taxes for 95 percent of Americans.

As we noted yesterday, that’s a flat-out lie – not least because nearly half of all tax filers pay no income tax at all. So how can he “cut” their taxes if they don’t pay any to begin with?

Answer: tax “credits.”
To wit, in part:
* A $1,000 “make work pay” credit.
* A $4,000 college-tuition credit.
* A $6,000 child-care credit.
* A $1,100 bump in the earned-income tax credit.

These aren’t to be income-tax deductions – which would be worthless to those who pay no income taxes.

These are to be checks from Washington – with the subsidies expected to grow to more than $1 trillion in 10 years.

That’s a massive transfer of wealth.

How does Obama justify it?

“Fairness,” he says.

But that’s an absurdly radical view of what’s “fair.”

Read the rest ->

“Fair” has nothing to do with it. But, luckily or not, depending on how you look at it (gallows humor there), our economic situation may make this “plan” go the way of Obama’s principled stands on NAFTA, FISA, etc. etc.

2)Today’s IBD has an article about Iran and a potential natural gas cartel – featuring Iran and Russia – to function somewhat like OPEC. Except a forward thinking elected official is taking steps to nullify any effect of such a gas carte. Sarah Palin.

Energy: Iran resurrected its idea of a “gas cartel” to control gas markets like oil. But even if it succeeds, the U.S. won’t be vulnerable. If you wonder why, look to the governor of Alaska.

That’s right, Gov. Sarah Palin took a powerful preemptive step in August to shield the U.S. from a coming gas cartel. Palin’s effort to create the Trans-Canada Alaska gas line — which would provide a vast new trove of natural gas each day to the U.S. — effectively nullifies the emerging gas cartel’s potential impact on America.

If OPEC strikes you as a bad group, the new cartel for natural gas, led by Russia and Iran, will be even worse.

Russia has made standoffish statements about the plan, but won’t repudiate it. “A gas OPEC is an interesting idea,” then-President Vladimir Putin declared last year. Based on Russia’s moves since, the Heritage Foundation’s Ariel Cohen believes it’s a stealth move from the Kremlin to keep buyers unperturbed as the cartel slowly forms.

He’s right. This week in Tehran, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad quietly drew up the organization’s charter and will take it to Moscow next week.
—————–
. . . The market is changing fast. Global trade in liquified natural gas, or LNG, which requires no pipelines, will grow sharply. The U.S. will see a 58% increase in LNG imports in just two years, according to the Energy Department.

As the U.S. uses more natural gas, Iran’s Gas Exporting Countries Forum is taking off. Instead of the tough task of controlling prices right away, the group will first gain control of reserves through state firms in 14 countries, including hostile states such as Venezuela and Bolivia.

The next step will be “cooperative” ventures to strengthen the network. The final goal is to control production.

It’s nothing but a scheme to carve up monopoly spheres of influence that can tell customers whom they can buy from. That will kill competition and create incentives for meddling. Russia, which readily cuts off gas to neighbors over political disputes, has signaled that it will keep using gas as a political weapon.
—————–
As for U.S., already fairly self-sufficient in natural gas, we will be in a more solid position to defy the coercion. Palin’s pre-emptive step to foil Ahmadinejad’s scheme is in the Alaska gas line. In an Amazonian move, Palin effectively beat back the ambitious petrotyrants 10 years early with her $40 billion, 1,715-mile gas pipeline across Canada that will bring 4.5 trillion cubic feet of gas a day — nearly one-fifth projected needs — to the lower 48 within a decade.

Almost entirely off the news radar, Palin mowed down 30 years of legislative squabbling in the Alaska statehouse and then triumphantly signed off on the pipeline in August, stating her aim was energy independence.

“Alaska should be the leader of an energy policy that gets us there,” she told IBD over the summer.

————–

Her gas line shows . . . foresight, this time aimed at neutralizing enemies that will otherwise grow in strength. Palin’s pipeline will be a critical strike for energy security against petrotyrants intent on extending their influence. It will come online at precisely the moment the gas cartel could develop into a power.

This isn’t to say petrotyrants will go away, that the U.S. won’t be in the crossfire. U.S. self-sufficiency in natural gas will be roughly equivalent to Brazil’s in oil. The South American country which sees few problems from petrotyrants in the wake of its oil independence based on its willingness to drill. The U.S. likely will have the same strength in natural gas.

Energy security is a peculiar concept. Conventional wisdom holds that the U.S. has too few resources to bother drilling. But a nation need not have massive oil reserves for independence; all it needs are competitive alternatives — such as natural gas. Heading off the gas cartel is an important move, and Palin deserves recognition.

Palin’s foresight is a major contribution to U.S. energy security that will reverberate well beyond the election, no matter how it turns out.

In a couple of years when it is clear how the economic mess will fall out and whether or not the US works to change its energy use patterns, this pipeline will probably be one of very few examples of foresight. And hopefully I’ll be around to remind MSM idiots this is the official they said couldn’t walk and chew gum at the same time. That’s our press – always fighting the last war.

3)The San Diego Union-Tribune has an op-ed saying Obama’s truthfulness should be questioned.

Any day now, I expect Barack Obama to call a news conference, wag his finger to the cameras, and announce with all the sincerity he can muster: “I did not have a substantive relationship with that Weatherman, Mr. Ayers.”

Of course, the way things are going, Obama may not have to lift a finger, let alone wag one. He might be able to run out the clock and avoid comment on continuing questions involving his involvement with a Hyde Park neighbor and unrepentant domestic terrorist, William Ayers.
————–

. . . here is what the voters should care about: Obama’s truthfulness, which is now in question. Over the last few months, we’ve learned that Obama and Ayers had more than just a “flimsy” relationship that included Ayers hosting a political gathering at his home for Obama when he was running for the Illinois Senate and the two serving together on various panels and boards. Ayers was also a founder of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a school-reform group. Obama served as chairman of its board from 1995 to ‘99, using the position to launch his political career.

Recently, Obama pulled back the curtain an inch. He told reporters that, during his association with Ayers, he had heard about the English professor’s radical past but assumed Ayers had been rehabilitated. Ayers’ ghoulish comments about not setting enough bombs suggest otherwise.

I put no stock in the politics of guilt by association. And even associating with ghouls should not hurt someone’s bid for the presidency. But lying about it is another story. It could be a warning of things to come.

Yeah. Kinda late, dude. Wish you had been there earlier. Then your op-ed might have been meaningful.

4)At the Boston Globe, another op-ed saying something quite similar. It begins by talking about other public figures who have been “guilty by association” such as Ronald Reagan (using the phrase “states’ rights” in MS). Then he goes here:

In none of these cases was there anything like the long relationship that Barack Obama had for so many years with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the incendiary, America-damning pastor he described for years as his mentor, his sounding board, and his friend. In none of them was there anything comparable to Obama’s significant involvement with William Ayers, the domestic-terrorist-turned-extremist-professor with whom Obama worked closely at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, channeling more than $100 million into radical education projects.

Nor was anything in the Reagan, Bush, or Alito episodes akin to Obama’s highly profitable relationship with Tony Rezko, the crooked Chicago businessman and political fixer who was convicted in June on multiple counts of fraud, corrupt solicitation, and money laundering. In the course of their 17-year relationship, Rezko directed hundreds of thousands of dollars to Obama’s political war chests; he also facilitated the Obamas’ purchase of a $1.6 million mansion by agreeing to buy the adjoining lot from the same seller.
————

But it isn’t ridiculous to question the values of a candidate whose political career got its start in the Chicago living room of violent traitors like Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn, who have never expressed remorse for the brutal crimes they committed in the Weather Underground. There is nothing unfair about wondering how Obama could have worshipped for 20 years in Wright’s church, yet never objected to the fanatic pastor’s virulent messages: that AIDS was created by the US government as an instrument of genocide, that America is the “US of KKKA,” that the 9/11 slaughter was “America’s chickens coming home to roost.”

Guilt by association? Not when the associations have such deep roots or raise such troubling questions about Obama’s character and judgment. It was only in the heat of a presidential campaign that Obama finally repudiated his alliances with Ayers, Wright, and Rezko. It isn’t irresponsible to ask what those associations tell us about a man poised to be the next president of the United States. It would be irresponsible not to.

What two of these editorials now? Think some MSM are issuing these “just in case” or what? Yeah, thanks for this insight dude. Should have been around, what, oh – months ago.

5)Fox had a roundtable on the John Lewis spew and how race-baiting has worked this election cycle. Charles Krauthammer explained how it works – just as we’ve been talking about here at NQ all along.

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: When John McCain runs an ad with a white woman, Paris Hilton in it, he is accused of racism. He runs an ad with Franklin Raines, the former head of Fannie Mae in it, who is African-American, and that’s racist. And then he runs an ad with William Ayers, who is a white male in it, and that’s racist.

If it weren’t so comical, these promiscuous accusations of racism, it would be tragic.

The Obama campaign has been playing the race card over and over again. Look, this is a campaign that in the primaries succeeded in painting Bill Clinton as a racist.

Now, Clinton, with all of his flaws, this is a man who throughout his career from Governor of Arkansas to president of the United States and beyond, has been a great and sincere friend of African-Americans who shared and tried to advance their aspirations. So if you can pull off a trick like that on Bill Clinton, you can pull it off on Republicans.

And look what Obama has said. He’s the one who raised the Barack Hussein Obama a year or two ago in which he said the Hussein is actually an asset and would be an asset in dealing with Muslims abroad.

He’s the one who openly said that the Republicans will say I’m black, they will say he’s scary. They will say he’s different. They will say he doesn’t look like the guy on the dollar bill.

That is Obama preemptively accusing McCain of racism, which is a scurrilous charge. Racism is a serious charge in our country, and a false accusation is doubly serious. As we saw in the Duke lacrosse case, it can destroy lives. Given our history, it ought to be used with great care.

And to accuse preemptively McCain of racism even before there is any evidence of it, and there has not been any evidence of it before or since, is scurrilous.
They say patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. Accusations of racism is the last refuge of the liberal scoundrel, and it has been used again and again on the part of the Obama campaign.

You’ve got to admit, it’s been a neat trick to race-bait an entire race from start to finish AND get away with it too. Of course, Jesse Jackson already warned that electing an “AA” president (Obama’s not REALLY AA – he’s white, African and Arab) won’t come close to shutting down the “race question.” So sorry if you think this will show that America has “come a long way.” I think the Obama campaign just naturally assumed race would be his “problem” because, you know, ALL WHITE PEOPLE ARE RACIST and so they devised a way to make it “work for him.” Cynical and not at all hopey changey. Think this will continue into an Obama admin? Stay tuned. I kind of think not.

6)Commentary has an opinion piece that reminds us of what we used to say about “questionable associations” before it became a racist thing if used to question Obama. “If you lie down with dogs, you’re going to get fleas.”

Still, in our wiser moments, we have always understood that character, broadly defined, is important to possess for those in high public office, in part because it tells us whether our leaders warrant our trust, whether their word is dependable, and whether they are responsible. And one of the best indicators of character is the people with whom you associate. This is basic, elementary-school level common sense. The odds are your parents wanted you to hang around with the “right” crowd instead of the wrong crowd because if you hung around with the latter it meant its members would be a bad influence on you, it would reflect poorly on you, and you’d probably end up getting into trouble.

What applies to 10-year-olds also applies to presidential candidates.
Over the years, Barack Obama hung around with some pretty disturbing characters, and what we’re talking about aren’t isolated incidents. It has happened with a slew of people on a range of issues. He has connected himself with domestic terrorists (William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn), with an anti-American and racist minister (Jeremiah Wright), and with corrupt people (Antoin “Tony” Rezko) and organizations (ACORN). What we see, then, is a pattern.
—————-

For those who say that these associations don’t matter, that they’re “distractions” from the more urgent problems of our time and an example of “Swift-boating,” consider this: if John McCain had sat in the pew of a pastor who was a white supremacist and launched his political career at the home of, and developed a working relationship with, a man who bombed abortion clinics or black churches and, for good measure, was unrepentant about it, McCain’s political career would be (rightly) over, and he would be (rightly) ostracized.

A political reference point may be helpful here. Senator Trent Lott was hounded out of his post as Majority Leader because of a few inappropriate comments — made in bad taste but in jest — at Strom Thurmond’s 100th birthday party. Much of the media and the political class were outraged. Yet we have a case in which Obama has had close, intimate relations with some really unsavory folks, and we’re told it doesn’t matter one bit.

This is the crux of the “associations” argument. Obama has, throughout his life, chosen to work with, pal around with and otherwise promote and be promoted by people whose background is unsavory at best. And this pattern of behavior is not apparently relevant to people. That says a lot about him as a person, but it says more about his supporters. The bar has been lowered for him.

7)And lastly today, don’t expect to see THIS story anywhere but here today.

The agent in charge of the Secret Service field office in Scranton said allegations that someone yelled “kill him” when presidential hopeful Barack Obama’s name was mentioned during Tuesday’s Sarah Palin rally are unfounded.

The Scranton Times-Tribune first reported the alleged incident on its Web site Tuesday and then again in its print edition Wednesday. The first story, written by reporter David Singleton, appeared with allegations that while congressional candidate Chris Hackett was addressing the crowd and mentioned Oabama’s name a man in the audience shouted “kill him.”

News organizations including ABC, The Associated Press, The Washington Monthly and MSNBC’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann reported the claim, with most attributing the allegations to the Times-Tribune story.

Agent Bill Slavoski said he was in the audience, along with an undisclosed number of additional secret service agents and other law enforcement officers and not one heard the comment.
————
He said the agency conducted an investigation Wednesday, after seeing the story, and could not find one person to corroborate the allegation other than Singleton

So, a reporter claims he heard someone in the crowd say this. The Secret Service, no slouches when it comes to protecting US Presidents and wanna-bes, conducts an investigation and finds nada, zip, zero and nothing at all.

But the reporter “stands by his story.” Yep. That’s our media these days. And don’t look for any retractions or revisions from the national lapdogs either. Think that “reporter” was Jayson Blair?