Dig in Deep

Neal Boortz has some good comments on the Fairness Doctrine today:

Note, please, that whenever despots try to seize control of a government, and with it a country, they first seize control of the means of communication. How can you observe this in country after country with despot after despot engaged in coup after coup and not understand that this is exactly what our own politicians do when they try to increase their control over broadcasting? How will the Democrat’s looming attempt to reign in talk radio be any different than Hugo Chavez’ attempts to shut down opposition newspapers in Venezuela?

Any political attempt to silence political speech of your political opposition or to intimidate them is clearly against the intent of the first amendment – ensuring that opposition to politicians has a full right to be heard, including using the latest technology. Boortz also makes the observation that if the nonsensical idea of “public airwaves” is the basis upon which free political speech on radio stations can be regulated, newspapers are delivered on “public highways” and can also be regulated. I’d add that magazines use the “public postal system” and that even web sites use “public cyberspace.” While certainly the government can regulate what is broadcast on radio, TV, etc., the idea of the Fairness Doctrine as a political weapon to silence your opposition is blatantly unconstitutional.

And guess which wing of the Supreme Court would be more than willing to accept the idea of the government having the power to regulate political speech over the airwaves?

As James Gattuso from the Heritage Foundation explained:

Arguments that the Fairness Doctrine is needed because certain types of media are too conservative, too negative, too partisan, or too anything actually strengthen the case against the regulation. Any law that is targeted at media based on the content of what is being said raises greater constitutional concerns and is much less likely to pass constitutional muster–and for good reason. Regulating speech in order to alter its content is exactly the sort of meddling that the First Amendment is meant to prohibit. It is simply not the job of politicians to “correct” the mix of opinions being expressed in the marketplace of ideas, even if–and especially if–they disagree with those opinions.

Liberals, if your basic commitment to the rights of citizens doesn’t convince you the Fairness Doctrine is a bad idea, take note: the Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon administrations used the Fairness Doctrine to intimidate their critics in the media. You do not want to go down this path. Perhaps you’d like Obama’s administration to have this power, but are you really that confident of success in 2012/2016?

This election is not over for John McCain. The media likes to spin this as essentially over, but Republicans tend to do better than the polls indicate, and there are a lot of undecided voters in just about every poll. Many of these are undecided about both candidates, but overall, Obama represents the more radical departure and is not as likely to get those voters as McCain is. McCain would be, without question, a phenomenal commander-in-chief, and has been a model of bipartisanship for years. He is a moderate, and as undecided moderates make up their minds they will likely vote McCain. The only question is, will they actually go and vote, and will it be enough?

The other factor is Sarah Palin. The media isn’t reporting very heavily, but she routinely attracts thousands to her rallies, while Biden attracts hundreds. I don’t think the polling data is taking into account the attraction she has to women who do not regularly vote. If Obama is going to be turning out the African-American vote this year – a rather reliable voting block for Democrats, anyway – Palin will be turning out the “stay-at-home-mom” vote this year, a mixed voting block that can turn this election.

To be clear, many things have to go right for McCain for him to win tomorrow. But it is not impossible, and I’d venture to say that it is not even unlikely that he can win, especially with the polls trending towards him currently.

But with the way Obama’s victory has been painted as a sure thing, be prepared for all hell to break loose if he loses. Riots, certainly. There are cities where riots happen when their sports team wins. But also the angry left will get a heck of a lot angrier, and they will (still) forget that the only Democrat to get elected President over the last 30 years campaigned as a conservative. The loss will be blamed on everything but the utter liberalness of their candidate.

An Obama win, however, could be even more devastating to the Democratic party. If Obama fulfills most of his promises – which will be likely given Democratic control of the house and senate – he will seriously erode the strength of the economy. The economy is weakening and on the brink for a full depression, and bad policies have a very likely tendency to just push it over the edge. They will still blame George W. Bush, of course, but after four years that will not resonate with voters.

Add any kind of serious foreign crisis – which Biden famously assured us will happen – and as Obama blunders it he will lose a lot of the luster he’s built up for himself.

On top of that, I guarantee you that the Democrats will try to re-enact the Fairness Doctrine, in a move to silence conservative talk radio. Obama has said that he doesn’t support doing this, but Pelosi and other congressional Democrats are big supporters of it, and will, at a minimum, try it. Doing so will ignite conservative opposition in a way the left has never seen, and will usher in huge changes in the election that follows (either 2010 or 2012).

In some ways, I’m interested to see how things would go with Obama as president. How nutty will the Democrats get, and how much will the media let them get away with? But in reality, I have to vote my conscience, and my conscience says this:

1) I will never vote for a candidate who supports partial-birth abortion, sucking babies brains out of their heads while they are halfway through the birth canal. Likewise I will not vote for a candidate who could not find it within themselves to take a stand and support the idea that healthcare must be provided to children born alive after a botched abortion. These issues speak volumes about the character of a person, even if they believe abortion should be legal.

2) I will vote for a candidate who has shown leadership in suggesting and supporting military strategies that result in more peace and stability, rather than the candidate who vowed to pull out troops, even if that meant chaos and instability in a country whose leaders we deposed after years of UN inaction. We do not need to prove Osama bin Laden right and act as a “paper tiger.”

3) I will never vote for a candidate who believes that it is a proper role of government to “spread the wealth around.”

4) I will not vote for a candidate who has a laundry list of radicals among his friends, mentors, and associates. Obama’s frequent lies about his relationship to Jeremiah Wright, his refusal to release records during his college years, his shady dealings with convicted felon Tony Rezko, and his associations with radicals such as Ayers and Khalidi, all are sufficient reason to vote against him.

5) I will not vote for a candidate who thinks that unions should be formed without a private ballot – Obama’s support for the (deceptively-named) Employee Free Choice Act is indefensible, and will encourage union organizer’s intimidation of workers.

6) I will vote for the candidate who has promised to nominate judges whose desire is to uphold the rule of law, and interpret the Constitution and the laws of the land as they have been written, rather than the candidate who believes that the most important qualification for a Supreme Court justice is a “sense of fairness.” If we continue to allow judges to rule as it seems fair to them, then none of our rights are safe.

As you can tell, most of my vote tomorrow will be against Barack Obama. I urge you to do the same.

Finally, there are many other races tomorrow that are worth watching out for, but there are two that I actually really, really hope for a Democratic defeat. First of all, if Al Franken is elected Senator that will represent, to me, the end of a sensible electorate. Second, John Murtha has still not been held accountable for his despicable verbal attacks on the Marines regarding the Haditha incident. Both of these races are close. If Obama wins and Franken and Murtha lose, I’ll consider election day a draw.

You absolutely must read this. Boortz expertly summarized the issues at stake in this election. After discussing some basic issues, he gets into the main concerns:

• Wright, Ayers, Rezko, etc. – “If Barack Obama was applying for a security clearance as a government employee, these associations would disqualify him. We are, my friends, about to have a president who doesn’t qualify for a security clearance.”
• Tax Policy – “Obama didn’t wish to use the police power of the state to collect taxes necessary for the legitimate functions of government; he wanted to use his taxing power to promote some vaporous ‘fairness’ in our economy.”
• Wealth Redistribution – “Just what percentage of voters out there do you think are going to vote for Obama simply because he is promising them someone else’s money?”
• Increasing Small Business Taxes – “It is not the percentage of businesses who will have to pay the increased taxes; it’s the percentage of the total of small business employees who work for those businesses.” While 95% of small businesses have a revenue of less than $250,000 a year, those are largely the ones with 1 and 2 employees – they’re also struggling, and quite often failing (many lasting less than four years). The other 5% with higher incomes are the “larger,” more stable small businesses, and have many more employees. A large percentage of small business employees will be hurt by Obama’s tax plan. When faced with increasing taxes, small businesses owners will typically cut expenses. And their employees are usually their biggest expense.
• Employee Free Choice Act – Obama wants to remove the secret ballot from union elections. “This is nothing less than Barack Obama and his Democrat pals legitimizing union intimidation in the workplace.”
• The Supreme Court – “A recent and rather shocking survey showed that around 80% of people who support Barack Obama believe that the Supreme Court should base its decisions not on the Constitution, but on what’s ‘fair.’” Supreme Court justices are supposed to uphold the law, according to the Constitution, not create new rights and judge on a vague sense of fairness.

Yet another reason why I do not like Democrats…

Many people I know are upset with Saxby Chambliss (R) for voting for the bailout bill, and are prepared to vote for Jim Martin (D) for Senate as a punishment. I understand the desire to do this. The bailout bill went from a 2-page bad proposal to a 450-page bill full of junk, that still wouldn’t work.

There’s an ad out in support of Jim Martin that is attacking Chambliss’ support for the FairTax. Every two years we get candidates on the Democrat side who have the bright idea of running ads against the FairTax. The problem is, they always misrepresent it. Watch the ad here.

The ad claims that Chambliss wants to add a new 23% national sales tax. Which is inaccurate in the sense that it is incomplete. Any mention of the FairTax that only mentions the new sales tax is inherently misleading and deceptive when it does not also mention that it removes all other federal income, payroll, inheritance, capital gains and business taxes, while at the same time providing a rebate for all taxes paid up to the poverty level consumption.

Denise Majette tried this four years ago when running against Johnny Isakson. Her actions four years ago turned me from a casual FairTax supporter into a die-hard one. It also turned me into a Boortz reader/listener. Democrats repeated similar attacks in 2006 to very limited success.

The problem with these types of attacks is that when someone finds out the truth, they will no longer trust you. This is not the kind of thing where you’re cherry picking issues out of complicated votes, or parsing statements to make them sound worse than they are. These kinds of attacks are plainly false, as anyone who understands anything about the FairTax can tell you.

Most of these attacks on the FairTax, including this one, are actually paid for by the national Democrat committees. This one was paid for by the Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee, led by Chuck Schumer. The Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee has been running similar ads – see the FairTax.org Hall of Shame.

Do me a favor. Send Democrats a message that these kinds of attacks will backfire, as they did four years ago. The FairTax needs Senators who will continue to support it. Vote for Saxby Chambliss, even if you have to swallow hard before you do it. The FairTax is that important.

And if you don’t understand the FairTax, honestly, it’s the simplest thing in the world to understand. Read about the basics of the plan (including answers to common criticisms), and if you’re so inclined, read the full text of the FairTax bill. It replaces 7,500 pages of IRS tax rules with a simple 133 page document.

If you like, as a comparison, you can view the full current tax code here. Good luck with that. Apparently, Democrats like Jim Martin think that 7,500 pages of tax code is far more preferable to 133 pages of tax code.

Yesterday, Obama spoke plainly about his agenda – “spread the wealth around.” Watch it here.

Even just a few years ago, this kind of talk would have been front page news. And it would have been a major turn-off for the majority of voters. Today, though, our public is ready to accept socialism, even if they don’t want to call it such.

Last night my dad sent out an e-mail titled “Wealth Redistribution is Neither Neighborly Nor Christian.” It was a very simple and straightforward comparison of private charity to government redistribution. I’ll let his e-mail speak for itself as a response to Obama’s desire to “spread the wealth around.”

It’s time the prevarication of referring to a progressive tax structure (or other wealth redistribution scheme) as “neighborly” or “Christian” is addressed with some clarity and truth.

Let us assume two families, the Smith family and the Jones family, live in adjacent houses in Anywhere, USA, and are thus literally neighbors. Further, they are on good terms and have a long-standing friendly relationship. Their children play together, they get each other’s mail during vacations, and they exhibit many other typical American neighborly behaviors. We would say, without question, these two families are neighbors.

Now, let’s suppose that the Smith family falls on hard times. Mrs. Smith loses her job due to circumstances beyond her control, and Mr. Smith alone cannot support the family on his elementary school teacher’s salary. Her car has mechanical problems, and they don’t have the money to have it repaired. Fortuitously, the Jones family next door has a third (spare) vehicle.

Of their own free choice, Mr. and Mrs. Jones offer to loan (or give) their extra vehicle to their neighbors, so that Mrs. Smith can seek employment or “whatever you need,” until “things get better.” Note the government isn’t involved in any way. This is an example of true neighborly acts (or acts of Christian kindness), initiated in the hearts of the givers, and which happen all over this nation on a daily basis.

In contrast, suppose the Jones family owns a small business that has proven very successful due to their hard work and endless hours. The government decides to further increase their income taxes “to help the less fortunate,” in keeping with principles of “fairness,” etc. The neighboring Smith family (or others in similar circumstances) may receive some of the money the government takes from the Jones family, by force of law (coercion). There is less money available to help the Smith family and others, after handling costs and paying salaries and expenses of the beaurocrats collecting and managing the money. And the government decides how to spend the money.

In this latter case, it’s unavoidably true that the Jones family has less money available to help others or give to the charities of their choice. Maybe they even have to sell one of their vehicles to pay the extra taxes, so it’s not available to help the Smith family. Secondly, there is no decision in the heart of the Jones family to help others – more likely they resent the government taking even more of their hard-earned income. Third, they may rationalize, “There’s no need for us to help others out; let the government do it.” Finally, there is no human connection between the actual neighbors or others who may benefit from the subsequent government spending. But the central actor is the nameless, faceless “government,” except of course for the politicians who endlessly take credit for proposing the program, or supporting, co-sponsoring, or voting for it (often even when they didn’t). An added benefit to them is that they get to buy votes with someone else’s money (ours).

Who makes the decision makes all the difference. Only individuals can make neighborly or Christian decisions. There is nothing whatsoever that is neighborly or Christian about the government taking from some by force and giving to others. Make no mistake about it, and don’t be misled. The only honest and objective term to describe this behavior by government is socialism.

Moreover, the politicians know it. But they will never say it. So one part of the big lie is that they have to find something else to call it. They also know that neighborly or even Christian principles are core values for most Americans. So another part of the big lie is to mask a heavy graduated income tax, not coincidentally one of the major planks of the Communist Manifesto, in neighborly or Christian terms. Perhaps you can recognize real “lipstick on a pig” when you see it.

The only thing I would add is the difference these two scenarios have in the Smith family.

As recipients of their neighbors’ kindness, they are motivated to improve their situation, because they do not want to be a long-term burden on their friends. They are also touched by the kindness they have received, and are much more likely to help someone else in the future when they see someone else in need.

Compare that to receiving your rightful statutory assistance from the government. They would not feel as if they are imposing on anyone, because after all they are getting what is “rightfully” theirs, by law – they would even be able to sue the government for it if they did not receive it. Because they had never been truly touched by the kindness and generosity of others, they are that much less likely to respond with kindness and generosity in the future when they see someone in need – an extension of the “let the government do it” argument (which is exactly why liberals like Barack Obama and Joe Biden give very, very little to charity).

Socialist wealth redistribution may indeed, temporarily, assist someone economically. But it also results in a moral cancer, increasing our isolation from each other, bitterness, selfishness, and envy of others’ success and accomplishments.

Remember Matthew 6. Those who blow trumpets to call attention to their righteous acts receive all the reward they will ever get here on earth. This would include those who favor socialist acts of wealth redistribution.

You likely won’t see this as news in the mainstream media, but rest assured that if Palin had made this kind of gaffe it would have been front page news.

When asked about the role of the vice presidency, Palin agreed that the vice presidency is a flexible position, and covers both the executive and legislative branches (since the VP is also the president of the senate).

Biden disagreed by criticizing Cheney as “the most dangerous vice president we’ve had probably in American history.” I’ll let historians debate that point, but he backed that up by saying:

He has — he has — the idea he doesn’t realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that’s the executive — he works in the executive branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that.

First of all, Article I describes the legislative branch – as McCain’s website says, “otherwise known as the branch in which Joe Biden has served for the last 36 years.” The executive branch is described in Article II. Second, the ONLY duty ascribed to the vice president (other than counting the electoral college votes) is given in Article I as the president of the Senate, which indicates that he does indeed have a major role in the legislative branch. Some framers actually refused to sign the Constitution because they felt that the vice president’s dual roles was a violation of the goal of separation of powers!

Rest assured, if Palin had screwed up like that, it would be covered far and wide, as proof-positive that she is unfit for the vice presidency. (More history on the power and role of the vice president can be found at senate.gov.)

The second gaffe, which is really more of an outright lie, was when Biden claimed that “This is simply not true about Barack Obama. He did not say sit down with Ahmadinejad.” Obama himself tried to lie about this at the first presidential debate, as I mentioned last week.

This is so easily provably false that it’s ridiculous. Here’s just one video:

John McCain’s site has a full report on Obama’s statements in this regard, including quoting from interviews and press conferences:

Harry Smith: “You said, ‘I will talk to so and so and Hugo Chavez and etc., etc.’”

Obama: “Exactly, and without preconditions.” (CBS’ “The Early Show,” 10/15/07)

Obama: “There has been no confusion. I have been absolutely clear on this. I will meet not just with our friends but with our enemies. I will meet without preconditions.” (CNN’s “The Situation Room,” 2/4/08)

If you don’t believe all of this, how about Obama’s website, even today?

Diplomacy: Obama supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions.

Look, this should be no surprise to anyone who followed the primary process. Obama said repeatedly, unwaveringly, that he would meet with these leaders, personally, without preconditions. And Biden himself called this dangerous.

Biden: “Would I make a blanket commitment to meet unconditionally with the leaders of each of those countries within the first year I was elected president? Absolutely positively no.” (Remarks At The National Press Club, Washington, DC, 8/1/07)

Clinton: “I thought that was irresponsible and, frankly, naive to say that you would commit to meeting with, you know, Chavez and Castro and others within the first year.” (ABC News,’ “Good Morning America,” 7/25/07)

I’d love for some Obama supporters to try to defend this. But there’s simply no way that you can. Not only was his original position dangerous and naive, but now he’s making outright lies about it to try to win the election.

If all of that isn’t enough for you, McCain’s site details a list of 14 lies Joe Biden made during the debate. Topics include tax votes, offshore drilling, troop funding, clean coal, alternative energy, health insurance, oil taxes, General McKiernan’s comments, regulation, and more. On just about every topic covered in the debate, really, Biden resorted to distortions and lies.

More of the same!

The Matthew 25 Network has already revealed itself to be totally pro-Obama, “defending” him based on his statements alone and refusing to consider his record. In any case, they’ve gone and completely discredited themselves, by putting up this site:

http://www.prolifeproobama.com/

Huh? Obama is pro-life?

Well, I suppose if you think the answer to the question “when does life begin” is above your pay grade, then you can say you’re pro-life, because you don’t really know if there’s life there or not.

In any case, they’re not really trying to say that Obama favors restrictions on abortion, but the domain name and title of the site alone is extremely misleading, and a mischaracterization of Obama’s entire record on abortion.

The idea of the site is actually to try to convince pro-life voters to vote for Obama. But by refusing to admit that he has voted against protections for babies born alive from botched abortions, that he wants to put justices on the Supreme Court who believe an abortion is a Constitutional right (I’ll give $10,000 to the person who can find “abortion” in the Constitution), and who felt that the partial-birth abortion ban was “unconstitutional,” we now have a group of well-respected Christians engaging in behavior that is downright misleading and deceptive.

(Actually, they were already characterizing Obama this way. Now they’re just making their hypocrisy more explicit.)

All liberals want regarding abortion is to keep it from any kind of democratic debate. All the Matthew 25 Network wants to do is help the liberal media pull the wool over Christians’ eyes as they work to elect the most liberal senator, one who has never, ever, not once in his entire political career, believed that any abortion restriction was appropriate. Even to the point of sucking a baby’s brains out while they’re halfway delivered. A brutality his wife called “a legitimate medical procedure.”

Whatever you think, that is most certainly not a “culture of life.”

And if you disagree with my assessment of Obama, I challenge you – show me one vote that contradicts me. You won’t find it.

Think about that when you get ready to pull the lever for Obama in November.

Overall, the debate was pretty good. McCain was consistent as I expected, and Obama backtracked on many of his primary positions as I expected.

There was something I really wish McCain had hammered Obama on, though.

Obama kept bringing up that we need to focus on why the financial crisis happened, and kept blaming it on Bush (and McCain). McCain did mention that he had warned about this a few years ago, but he should have more explicitly blamed the problem directly at the feet of the Democrats.

The following video does a great job of explaining this entire mess with the mortgage crisis (note, embedded video updated):

He could have easily pointed out the political pressure that the Democrats placed on the mortgage industry, dating back to the 70’s and increased in the 90’s, to provide loans to people who would normally not qualify for them. He could have pointed out Obama’s relationship with ACORN (where he was a “community organizer”), suing and threatening banks into writing more and more risky loans and driving up home prices in the meantime. And he could have called Obama out on Jim Johnson and Franklin Raines.

I have a theory as to why he didn’t, though – McCain is currently in the middle of working out a bailout deal and didn’t want to jeopardize it by placing the blame so publicly in the Democrat’s lap, where it belongs. Still, if Obama wants to analyze the reason for the crisis, McCain should have obliged him.

Another point he could have made easily is that Obama wants to raise taxes on businesses by closing loopholes. It would have been the perfect opportunity to point out that businesses don’t pay taxes, Senator, their consumers pay the taxes, embedded in the cost of the product or service. We need politicians who are willing to point out basic economic principles when other politicians try to pander to American ignorance.

There were many other areas where McCain did hammer Obama, and I’m glad he did. Obama was definitely backing away from his position on direct presidential diplomacy. In the primary debates, he stated that within the first year he’d personally sit down with Ahmadinejad without preconditions. Tonight he tried to paint that as starting with low level ambassadors and working his way up, which is exactly what everyone else has always supported. McCain adequately explained why this is dangerous, because direct talks legitimizes the kind of behavior Ahmadinejad has been displaying. Obama then tried to make it sound like Henry Kissinger was supportive of his approach, which is absolutely ludicrous. Look for that one to be played over and over again.

The other thing McCain harped on was Obama’s stance on the surge. Obama did not, and could not, adequately explain his opposition to the surge, and would not admit that he was wrong about it.

McCain also pointed out Obama’s initial response to Russia’s invasion of Georgia was weak and unequivocal. Obama denied it, but it’s true. His initial statement was “I strongly condemn the outbreak of violence in Georgia, and urge an immediate end to armed conflict.” McCain, on the other hand, called Russia out by saying “Russia should immediately and unconditionally cease its military operations and withdraw all forces from sovereign Georgian territory.” The differences are rather huge.

Stanley Kurtz (the guy Obama tried to silence on issues surrounding Ayers) has been pouring through the details of Obama’s time at the Chicago Annenburg Challenge, where Obama served as chairman of an organization created by the 60’s radical and unrepentant terrorist, Bill Ayers. Kurtz wrote a good column today detailing some of what the CAC was about, how it was tied to ACORN (where Obama did his “community organizing”), and how it went about it’s radical agenda.

There is a reason why Obama isn’t talking about his time there, and doesn’t want anyone else to, either.

The Obama campaign has cried foul when Bill Ayers comes up, claiming “guilt by association.” Yet the issue here isn’t guilt by association; it’s guilt by participation. As CAC chairman, Mr. Obama was lending moral and financial support to Mr. Ayers and his radical circle. That is a story even if Mr. Ayers had never planted a single bomb 40 years ago.

Read the full column for details.

Well, I guess when you’ve attended Trinity United Church of Christ, and listened to Jeremiah Wright for 20 years, you learn a thing or two.

Still, somehow, this amazes even me, given how we’re supposed to be “elevating” the level of discourse in this election and not playing the “politics of the past.”

Obama ran an ad, in Spanish, attacking McCain on immigration for things that they claimed Rush Limbaugh had said:

“They want us to forget the insults we’ve put up with, the intolerance,” the television ad’s announcer says in Spanish as a picture of Rush Limbaugh appears onscreen with quotes of him saying, “Mexicans are stupid and unqualified” and “Shut your mouth or get out.”

First of all, Rush Limbaugh is no close policy friend of John McCain. Particularly on immigration issues, Rush has been a huge critic of McCain’s proposals (along with most other conservatives). Just the whole idea of Rush and McCain being buddy-buddy is funny by itself.

But further, it turns out the the two quotes they took for the ad were COMPLETELY out of context. Well, if there’s one guy Obama can’t intimidate, it’s Rush. He wrote a column for the Wall Street Journal today, titled Obama is Stoking Racial Antagonism (emphases mine):

I understand the rough and tumble of politics. But Barack Obama — the supposedly postpartisan, postracial candidate of hope and change — has gone where few modern candidates have gone before.

Mr. Obama’s campaign is now trafficking in prejudice of its own making. And in doing so, it is playing with political dynamite. What kind of potential president would let his campaign knowingly extract two incomplete, out-of-context lines from two radio parodies and build a framework of hate around them in order to exploit racial tensions? The segregationists of the 1950s and 1960s were famous for such vile fear-mongering.

Here’s the relevant part of the Spanish-language television commercial Mr. Obama is running in Hispanic communities:

“They want us to forget the insults we’ve put up with . . . the intolerance . . . they made us feel marginalized in this country we love so much.”

Then the commercial flashes two quotes from me: “. . . stupid and unskilled Mexicans” and “You shut your mouth or you get out!”

And then a voice says, “John McCain and his Republican friends have two faces. One that says lies just to get our vote . . . and another, even worse, that continues the policies of George Bush that put special interests ahead of working families. John McCain . . . more of the same old Republican tricks.”

Much of the media that is uninterested in Mr. Obama’s connections to unrepentant 1970s Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers and Rev. Jeremiah Wright have so far gone along with the attempt to tie me to Mr. McCain. But Mr. McCain and I have not agreed on how to address illegal immigration. While I am heartened by his willingness to start by securing the borders, it is no secret that we have fundamental differences on illegal immigration.

And more to the point, these sound bites are a deception, and Mr. Obama knows it. The first sound bite was extracted from a 1993 humorous monologue poking fun at the arguments against the North American Free Trade Agreement. Here’s the context:

“If you are unskilled and uneducated, your job is going south. Skilled workers, educated people are going to do fine ’cause those are the kinds of jobs Nafta is going to create. If we are going to start rewarding no skills and stupid people, I’m serious, let the unskilled jobs that take absolutely no knowledge whatsoever to do — let stupid and unskilled Mexicans do that work.”

My point, which is obvious, was that the people who were criticizing Nafta were demeaning workers, particularly low-skilled workers. I was criticizing the mind-set of the protectionists who opposed the treaty. There was no racial connotation to it and no one thought there was at the time. I was demeaning the arguments of the opponents.

As for the second sound bite, I was mocking the Mexican government’s double standard — i.e., urging open borders in this country while imposing draconian immigration requirements within its own borders. Thus, I took the restrictions Mexico imposes on immigrants and appropriated them as my own suggestions for a new immigration law.

Here’s the context for that sound bite: “And another thing: You don’t have the right to protest. You’re allowed no demonstrations, no foreign flag waving, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our president or his policies. You’re a foreigner: shut your mouth or get out! And if you come here illegally, you’re going to jail.”

At the time, I made abundantly clear that this was a parody on the Mexican government’s hypocrisy and nobody took it otherwise.

The malignant aspect of this is that Mr. Obama and his advisers know exactly what they are doing. They had to listen to both monologues or read the transcripts. They then had to pick the particular excerpts they used in order to create a commercial of distortions. Their hoped-for result is to inflame racial tensions. In doing this, Mr. Obama and his advisers have demonstrated a pernicious contempt for American society.

We’ve made much racial progress in this country. Any candidate who employs the tactics of the old segregationists is unworthy of the presidency.

I don’t listen to Rush much at all anymore – I’m rarely in the car when he’s on the radio. But I listened to him enough in the past to understand his use of humor, satire, and sarcasm, and that is exactly what the quotes were lifted out of the middle of. Rush is absolutely right that the Obama campaign had to know exactly what they were doing when they lifted two quotes out of context, and put them out in a Spanish language ad in an attempt to stoke racial tension.

Obama doesn’t represent any new kind of politics. And when you consider the kind of associations and mentors he has had, this kind of thing shouldn’t be all that surprising.