I'm just watching the debate now, one day behind most everyone else because I'm information-starved in this remote corner of the globe and because I don't own a television.
I've just gotten to the part, about 12-15 minutes into the debate, where McCain points out that "We have former members of Congress now residing in federal prison because of the evils of earmarking and pork-barrel spending." Then, accusing Obama of asking for over $900 million in such spending, he suggests "that people go up on the website of Citizens Against Government Waste" (CAGW).
So, like a good Republican I visit the CAGW site, and boy, am I glad I found about all this corruption in government. Now, I don't know sh_t from Shinola, but I do know that Wikipedia and Sourcewatch are liberal-commie front groups. Here's the evidence (my emphases). I know it's not definitive proof, but I'd appreciate it if folks would refrain from labeling me a crazed right winger:
http://en.wikipedia.org/...
Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) is 501(c)(3) non-profit organization in the United States. It functions as a think-tank, 'government watchdog', and advocacy group for fiscally conservative causes. Its stated goal is "to eliminate waste, fraud, abuse and mismanagement in the federal government." The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW) is the lobbying arm of CAGW, organized as a section 501(c)(4) organization, and therefore permitted to engage in direct lobbying activities. CAGW has been criticized for its links to the tobacco industry and to lobbyists including Jack Abramoff.
[....]
Gee, you think the liberal-commie innuendo is clear enough? According to Wikipedia:
Abramoff is serving six years in prison on a criminal case out of Florida, where he pleaded guilty in January 2006 to charges of conspiracy, honest services fraud and tax evasion.
Uh, I have news for you Mr. Pedia: "conspiracy" implies "tinfoil," and "tinfoil" implies "bullsh_t." Had you not used the word "conspiracy," I would have noticed the bullsh_t anyway, but you used it, so it is clearly bullsh_t. And you call yourself an" online encyclopedia." Meh.
Publications
CAGW produces a number of publications critical of what it calls "pork-barrel" projects The Congressional Pig Book Summary (Pig Book) is an annual list of such projects and their sponsors.
The 2008 Pig Book identified 10,610 projects in the 11 appropriations bills that constitute the discretionary portion of the federal budget for fiscal 2008, costing taxpayers $17.2 billion. [3]. Related publications include Prime Cuts, a list of recommendations for eliminating waste in the federal government and Porker of the Month, a monthly press release.
Also, since 1989, the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW) has examined Congressional roll-call votes to determine which members of Congress are voting in what they view as the interest of taxpayers. CAGW makes public what legislators are engaging in "pork-barrel" spending based on 'key' votes for each congressional session.
Activity of CAGW
CAGW and CCAGW seek to influence public policy through public education, lobbying, and mobilization for email- and letter-writing campaigns. CAGW claims to have helped save taxpayers $944 billion through the implementation of Grace Commission findings and other recommendations.
Note the insidious liberal-commie bias with the insertion of the phrase "CAGW claims to have helped save...." Why doesn't it simply say "CAGW saved...."? Disgusting scum....
[....]
Other controversies
Throughout its history, CAGW has been accused of fronting lobbying efforts of corporations to give them the appearance of "grassroots" support.[16] In part, this is because CAGW has accepted donations from Phillip Morris, the Olin Foundation, the Bradley Foundation, Microsoft, Merrill-Lynch, and Exxon-Mobil.
Again, would you look at that crap? "Throughout its history, CAGW has been accused of...." Let's say that our president has been "accused of" being stupid, or that a Congressman has been "accused of" soliciting sex from pages or having a wide public-bathroom stance. Does that make any of this true? Pathetic.
According to the St. Petersburg Times, the Pig Book has been used to benefit corporate donors, specifically health clubs who donated to CAGW. The Pig Book listed federal grants to YMCAs who compete with those health clubs as waste. CAGW's president countered that "The Ys are there because they qualify as pork. Period."[16]
"According to the St. Petersburg Times...." This is so idiotic. The last I heard, St. Petersburg Times is not exactly ABC News, or CNN, or the Washington Post, and so on, all of which quote from CAGW and the Pig Book. Here's news for you Mr. Small-Time Newspaper in a Small City: you may try to smear the cover of our Pig Book with your sleazy lipstick dabbed in printer's ink, but it is still a Pig Book, and a damn good one at that.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/moyersonamerica/capitol/index.html
Capitol Crimes
"It's a dizzying scope of perfidy and politics that boggles the imagination, and although Jack Abramoff and Tom DeLay have been brought down, the system remains as vulnerable as ever," says Bill Moyers. "The scale of corruption still coming to light dwarfs anything since Watergate. In one sense it's the age-old tale of greed, but greed encouraged now by the way our system works. Deep in the plea agreements of Jack Abramoff and his cronies is the admission that they conspired to use campaign contributions to bribe politicians; campaign finance is at the core of the corruption. They took great pains to cover their tracks, and they might have pulled it off except for a handful of honest people, and the work of some enterprising print reporters, Senate investigators, and the ethics team at the department of justice. Following the money in this story leads through a bizarre maze of cocktail parties, golf courses, private jets, four-star restaurants, sweatshops - and the aura of chandeliered rooms frequented by the high and mighty of Washington."
[....]
ABRAMOFF AND NONPROFITS
Another Congressional report may cause tax status trouble for nonprofits associated with Abramoff. A report by the Democratic investigators of the Senate Finance Committee details how five nonprofit groups including, Americans for Tax Reform, Citizens Against Government Waste, the Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy, the National Center for Public Policy Research and Toward Tradition, eased access for Abramoff clients to administration officials and concealed the source of funds used for Congressional travel. The report alleges that some of the nonprofits officials "were generally available to carry out Mr. Abramoff's requests for help with his clients in exchange for cash payments."
Several nonprofit groups linked to the corrupt lobbyist Jack Abramoff became arms of his lobbying operation, a report by Democratic investigators for the Senate Finance Committee said. "Report Says Nonprofits Sold Influence to Abramoff," James V. Grimaldi and Susan Schmidt, THE WASHINGTON POST, October 13, 2006
"Minority Staff Report: Investigation of Jack Abramoff's Use of Tax-Exempt Organizations," Senate Committee on Finance, 2006 (PDF)
The National Center for Public Policy Research Response to Senate Finance Committee Minority Staff Report on Jack Abramoff and Non-Profit Organizations, October 6, 2006
"Congress's Charity Cases," Frances R. Hill, NEW YORK TIMES, October 17, 2006,
PROMISES OF REFORM: EARMARKS AND TRAVEL
[....]
Uh, thanks, Mr. Moyers, you Red Samaritan you. Just as you segue into a discussion of earmarks, connect CAGW to Abramoff through the innuendo of "allegations" found in Congressional "reports." Why don't you "just happen to mention, in passing," that McCain just quoted in the first presidential debate an organization that liberal-commies associate with corruption to reform the corruption of the organization of the corrupt liberal commies who associate with the organizations that organize the Palin debate preparation team but ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy. Um, helping, oh, it's got to be about job creation, too. Shoring up our economy, and putting it back on the right track. So health care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions, and tax relief for Americans, and trade — we have got to see trade as opportunity, not as, uh, competitive, um, scary thing, but one in five jobs created in the trade sector today. We've got to look at that as more opportunity. All those things under the umbrella of job creation.
Then, Mr. Moyers, the recursion would be complete, and we would all laugh. You know why, Mr. Moyers? We would all laugh because we are patriotic Americans* who don't know or give a sh_t what a recursion is, and even if we did we would simply never vote for a candidate whose grandfather was a Muslim and who supports talking to someone who wants to wipe Israel off the map, even if it is an old mistranslation. We are patriotic Americans who love our country and who love our war heroes, and you can rest assured that we will always choose a maverick reformer over a plain reformer, especially a maverick white reformer over a plain black one, because rare white mavericks are a rarity, even among rare mavericks, making it double maverick, or double maverick rareness--once in real imagery, and once in real life. In the meantime, I could use a double martini, but that's another story. Anyway, blah blah blah, or yadda yadda yadda, or yabba dabba doo, or something along those lines.
* who don't actually wear made-in-China flag pins all that often but do have those made-in-China bumper stickers with the yellow ribbon and do care about whether our black presidential candidates do, given that the latest polls asking whether viewers would be interested if new polls were given regarding a presidential candidate's refusal to wear flag pins showed that an overwhelming majority of the eleven people who responded said that they would be either very interested or mildly interested in seeing such a poll recursed over and over on the news, especially if accompanied by more news on Lindsay Lohan's and Clai Aiken's gay lovers.
What American's do not want, however, is the kind of wimpy journalism as evidenced by the McCain interview on The View, a week or two ago. Using the word "lie" to describe one of McCain's campaign ads? Ladies, please: leave journalism to the professionals, who not only understand recursions, but also understand the recursive values of those recursed recursions. Confused, ladies? I rest my case.
More on Wikipedia's take:
http://en.wikipedia.org/...
A Senate Finance Committee investigating ties between CAGW and other non-profits and Jack Abramoff in 2006 stated in a report that the non-profits: 'probably violated their tax-exempt status "by laundering payments and then disbursing funds at Mr. Abramoff's direction; taking payments in exchange for writing newspaper columns or press releases that put Mr. Abramoff's clients in a favorable light; introducing Mr. Abramoff's clients to government officials in exchange for payment; and agreeing to act as a front organization for congressional trips paid for by Mr. Abramoff's clients."'[17]
In 2007, CAGW supported a bill that would limit damages resulting from malpractice lawsuits[4]. Many consumer watchdog groups opposed the bill.[5]
Sheer idiocy. Note that it says "probably violated their tax-exempt status 'by laundering payments and then disbursing funds at Mr. Abramoff's direction.'" Is there anything more ridiculous than this? Wikipedia clearly doesn't have a clue and has to resort to innuendo because it knows that it is quite possible that CAGW laundered payments and then disbursed funds at Mr. Abramoff's direction without violating their tax-exempt status.
The thing that I find most disconcerting about sites like Wikipedia is that many people are completely unaware of its liberal-commie bias. As a result, clueless Joe Sixpack could easily stumble upon a page like the above without having once visited the actual website, then start telling his friends that CAGW is a disreputable organization when, in fact, sites like Wikipedia and "Sourcewatch" are clearly the source of the problem.
All I can say is if our hero John McCain can muster up the courage to navigate through the Internets tubes, even with an arm crippled by his years of captivity in the Cambodian rainforest deep in the heart of Vietnam and to make the visit to the website of Citizens Against Government Waste, it sure is good enough for me.
Wikipedia serves as a clear illustration of a government pork-barrel project gone wild. This is one of the first wasteful government projects that we must drown in a bathtub--or, as the case may be, in a pork barrel if necessary--lest it infiltrate the public with its sinister, cleverly concealed lies and innuendos.
While we're at it, I urge you all to put pressure on the next president to bring charges against Al Gore for inventing the Internets and to fire the chair of the SEC, who I believe is responsible for carrying out the rampant Internets deregulation that made Wikipedia possible. If we fail to root out this blight spreading wildly through our Commonwealth, then the next thing you know a new kind of writing will crop up seeking to blend the truth of politics with the absurdity of fiction--or is it the other way around? As I believe Dan Quayle once said, "The only thing that is absurd is absurdity itself, as well as all the other absurd things, like absurd fiction."
Now back to the debate to watch my hero defeat the Muslim defeatism that Sen. Obama represents.
BTW, here's another absolutely hilarious thing: The Huffington Post has a "summary" of who won the debate, again using the tried-and-true, liberal-commie tactic of saying that so-and-so many percent of people "thought" Obama won the debate.
What's even funnier is that the debate is not even over! I'm watching it right now! Yet, even as we are barely fifteen minutes into the debate, Huffington Post says that Obama won. I wouldn't be surprised if there are banner ads up on the site already saying that Obama won. It just kills me how desperate the Obama campaign is to make their candidate look strong.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/26/debate-reviews-go-to-obam_n_129803.html
Who Won The Debate? Reviews Go To Obama
Nico Pitney
September 26, 2008
Several positive reviews for Obama. A CBS News instant poll finds:
40% of uncommitted voters who watched the debate tonight thought Barack Obama was the winner. 22% thought John McCain won. 38% saw it as a draw.
68% of these voters think Obama would make the right decision about the economy. 41% think McCain would.
49% of these voters think Obama would make the right decisions about Iraq. 55% think McCain would.
Watch:
Two focus groups, one by GOP pollster Frank Luntz and another by Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg, both declared Obama the winner. Here's video of Luntz, some pretty powerful stuff:
Watch:
Independents in the MediaCurves focus group "gave the debate to Obama 61-39. They also think he won every individual segment. Republicans gave the debate to McCain 90-10, Democrats to Obama 93-7."
And even Time's Mark Halperin weighs in with his grades: Obama A-, McCain B-.
Update: CNN's poll has all Obama winning overall, on the economy and on Iraq:
Who Did the Best Job In the Debate?
Obama 51%
McCain 38%
Who Would Better Handle Economy?
Obama 58%
McCain 37%
Who Would Better Handle Iraq?
Obama 52%
McCain 47%
Notice how the writer simply "quotes" CBS, and "quotes" "pollsters," and "quotes" "independents," and "quotes" Time, and "quotes" CNN. Laughable. Or should I say "laughable"?
As much as I hate to be the one to have to do this, somebody's gotta keep an eye on these commie sites. Before the McCarthy era, there was Communism, and after Communism there was McCarthy. According to Gov. Palin, I think, the McCarthy era stopped because there was no need for it any more, especially after Communism was eradicated by the McCarthy era, and oh, it's got to be about job creation, too. Shoring up our economy, and putting it back on the right track. Afterward, there has not been any more communism or job creation in the US for nearly half a century, until it started cropping up on the Internets.
I can tell you all that funding for a new McCarthy era to eradicate this newer, more virulent form of communism is one earmark spending that will not be a waste of taxpayers' money. I learned that at my church, where we practice writing in tongues.
In light of the above, check out the following for definitive confirmation that McCain is a true maverick reformer:
http://www.dailykos.com/...
The McCain Plan: "Fewer Regulations, More Corporate Tax Breaks"
by SusanG
Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 05:21:55 PM PDT
KATIE COURIC:
And, Bob, I understand that John McCain actually floated an alternative plan. What can you tell us about that?
BOB ORR:
We're told at the White House Senator McCain offered an alternative plan that would include fewer regulations and more corporate tax breaks for businesses, kind of a private solution. But we're also told those ideas angered and surprised Democrats like banking chairman Chris Dodd who now says he thinks the White House summit was more of a political stunt for McCain.