Right Pundits

This ad caught my attention—I usually don’t pay attention to ads, but I knew with all the “change” comments that this wasn’t another Obama ad—but an ad designed to stimulate thought concerning what kind of “change” are we talking about, the expense, etc.

Clever.

The ad will in no way affect the election.

As with so many other things, Barack Obama has proved himself adept at playing the race card. What most people don’t realize, though is that the race card has two sides back to back. And maybe you have to be part of a really small, relatively quiet and peaceful ethnic minority group— like the Indian American community– to ever get a look at the uglier side of the race card Mr. Obama and his Democrats are playing.

On the one hand, Mr. Obama spares no opportunity to portray himself as the black victim of right-wing Republican racism– a role he has perfected. His Harvard erudition melts away into a plaintive inner-city mumble as he tells us how the McCain campaign is trying to make everybody afraid of him. Of how they point out that he doesn’t look like the Presidents on the money… you know.

On the other hand, and far removed from the media glare, there’s the Obama campaign’s calculated use of racial slurs when he knows most people aren’t looking, or listening.

During the deliberate, targeted campaign of character assassination mounted against Hillary Clinton by the Obama people earlier this year… one specific smear stands out in the minds of Indian Americans, because it fed on the kind of xenophobia that is increasingly directed towards us in this time of immigration and outsourcing debates.

A fund-raiser and supporter of Senator Clinton’s named Sant Chatwal became the specific object of the Obama people’s hate campaign. Mr. Chatwal is a successful hotelier in the tri-state area, and a long-time associate of Senator Clinton’s. He is a proud American– of Sikh Indian ancestry, but no less an American for having those roots.

Trying to capitalize on the morbid and all-pervasive fear of outsourcing to India… which appears increasingly the Democratic Party’s favorite scapegoat for America’s economic woes… the Obama people smeared Senator Clinton for her association with Mr. Chatwal by putting out a carefully-unsigned press release referring to her as THE SENATOR FROM PUNJAB.

For one thing, this was completely and utterly racist… Mr Chatwal has only about as much connection with Punjab as Mr. Obama has with Kenya, though of course if you dwell too long on Mr. Obama’s Kenyan roots his attack dogs will be all over you with accusations of racism.

For another, it was intentionally misleading… worded in such a way as to suggest that Mrs. Clinton was somehow in favor of outsourcing to India, or looking out for a foreign country’s interests at the expense of America’s own, and connecting this allegation to the fact that her supporter Mr. Chatwal happens to be of Indian origin.

And finally, it capitalized on exactly the kind of toxic, widespread prejudice that Mr. Obama blames the McCain campaign of deploying against him. Mr. Obama contends that the Republicans are using “dog-whistle politicsâ€? to infuse majority white voters with fear about how different he is from them and from the image of their traditional leaders. Yet, his campaign tried to smear Mrs. Clinton using a loathesome and xenophobic popular stereotype of ethnic Indians as a strange brown-skinned people who threaten the American economy by outsourcing American jobs. With the specific use of the phrase “Senator from Punjab” to smear Mrs. Clinton, the Obama people slip in a cheap-shot implication of extra-national loyalty that’s completely unfair to both Sant Chatwal, a proud American citizen, and to Hillary Clinton whom he supports.

Mr. Obama has demonstrated that if you’re an American who accumulates enough wealth and power, you are free to be as blatantly, vicariously, publicly racist as you like… as long as you don’t happen to be white. It also helps to have a lick-spittle media that considers you beyond reproach, and refuses to look at the sorts of ugly things that are going on.

We all know the kind of outrage that would have abounded, had Republican criticism of Mr. Obama’s shadier associates, like the convicted felon Mr. Rezko and the curiously radical pastor Jeremiah Wright, referred at all to the ethnicity of those two worthy gentlemen. Yet, when Mr. Obama’s people want to cast the nastiest, most xenophobic aspersions on one of Mrs. Clinton’s associates… Sant Chatwal… apparently the same definition of what constitutes racism does not apply.

As for Obama’s running mate, Senator Joe Biden obviously has utter contempt for the Indian American community’s sentiments. Why else would he choose to make a punchline out of the repugnant cartoon stereotype of Indians as heavily accented 7-11 owners, and feel comfortable doing so in front of C-SPAN’s cameras?

I’d strongly urge my fellow Indian-Americans to consider this, when making up their minds on whom to vote for this November.

We as a community have always tended to vote Democrat, perhaps having swallowed the oft-repeated lie that Democrats stand up for the rights of ethnic minorities more conscientiously than do Republicans. On even cursory examination, though, it becomes obvious that this only applies to minorities who are large enough to significantly impact the electoral calculus.

The anti-India prejudice of the Democratic Party, which exists in plain sight if you only take a moment to look, isn’t restricted to a slight here or a gaffe there. Whether it stems from the all-pervasive Chinese sponsorship of Democratic legislators and administration officials, or from plain old institutionalized bigotry, the fact remains that it’s reflected at the highest levels of their policymaking.

Consider the right of India, menaced by two hostile and nuclear-armed neighbors in China and Pakistan, to develop the necessary means to defend herself. India’s attempt to establish a nuclear deterrent against the threat posed by these neighbors, was met with rabid hostility from the Democratic Clinton administration. Not only were all manner of economic and technological sanctions applied, but Clinton’s Secretary of State Madeleine Albright actually advocated taking military action against India for her arrogance in having tested nuclear weapons.

This Democratic policy was based on the blatantly supremacist idea that lesser nations and peoples must be denied what is now sixty-year-old technology by means of intimidation and bullying. The devices of its enforcement, such as the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, may reasonably be compared to a law that prohibits American citizens from owning guns unless they happen to be white and live in rich neighborhoods.

Imposing sanctions on New Delhi after India’s nuclear tests didn’t serve American interests in any conceivable way. They did not persuade India to give up her nuclear weapons program, nor did they significantly slow India’s emergence as an economic power. All they achieved was to alienate a potential ally and burgeoning export market for the better part of a decade… at more long-term cost to America’s interests than to India’s.

By contrast, the Bush administration… reviled at every turn for its aggressive implementation of foreign policy… was actually sensitive to India’s security concerns. Yes, this monstrous Republican regime was the one that not only lifted the Clinton sanctions, but went out of its way to ensure that India could claim her rightful place in the comity of responsible nuclear-armed states by introducing the Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006. The Republicans didn’t just talk about deepening the natural alliance for which such great promise exists between India and the United States; they threw America’s diplomatic weight behind the agreement at the IAEA and the NSG. Throughout the international community, they expended whatever political capital was necessary to see the deal through.

And the Democrats? Well, when the Indo-US Nuclear Cooperation Agreement came up for vote in Congress as H.R. 5682, it was a host of Democratic legislators… including Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Barbara Boxer, who did their best to scuttle the deal. At every opportunity, they introduced poison pill amendments that would have killed the agreement negotiated in good faith between the State Department and the Indian Government. Obviously, for all their voluble concern about “global warming�, the Democrats are eager to deny India the use of clean nuclear power for her rapidly growing economy. Obviously, for all their supposed commitment to egalitarianism, they’re happy to see communist China threaten democratic India with nuclear weapons but begrudge India the capacity to retaliate.

I wonder if this reflects the paternalist worldview that the Democratic Party seems to have inherited directly from the old British Empire… that a nation of brown people can neither be trusted nor allowed to possess dangerous weapons. It’s ironic that the party promoting such an atavistic, racist and inflexible foreign policy should claim to stand for “change�. Their perspective could not be more different from the hard realism and courageous initiative that the Bush administration has demonstrated in dealing with India as an emerging power in her own right.

Perhaps this difference in attitudes towards India is also reflected in President Bush taking time out of his schedule to drop in on a meeting between then NSA Condoleezza Rice and India’s Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh, in Washington DC some years ago. During that same visit, Mr. Singh was kept waiting for hours and then blown off by the office of Senator Joe Biden. Chew on that the next time you stop at a Dunkin’ Donuts.

I am so glad to see this web site as it was starting to look like the king, Obama, was going to unchallenged in this election. The media, an example would be Baabaa Waawaa, lust for Obama and his ilk.
I think that Obama is smooth and will cost the citizens of this country greatly. I have heard young people say it is our responsibility to pay the increase in taxes that Obama will put into place to pay down the deficit. I quickly informed this lady that if ANY politician see an extra nickle, they will spend a dime. Taxes will NOT bring down the deficit. I do not know why some groups should pay 50% of their income to support this country.
In a time of war, Obama will sit down and talk about it, over and over again, until we get attacked again and then he will probably make excuses for the attacker’s actions.
Sara Palin is a breath of fresh air and I love her and feel that she could be as good a president as any of the men in the race.

In my mind… this election comes down to one comparison.

John McCain will make the federal government smaller and less powerful.

Barrack Obama is a Marxist who wants a bigger and more powerful federal government.

Senator Obama’s mother and father were both Marxists. His formative years were sculpted by Marxists (Frank Marshall Davis, William Ayers). Barrack Obama’s tax plan won’t work because, quite simply, every time taxes are increased on the individual and business, total federal revenue drops. (pillar of Communism, redistribution of wealth) Who decides who is wealthy? Obama of course.

The tax plan also assumes a closed system. In Obama’s mind, if he raises taxes on the wealthy or business… they will be forced to pay it. Not true. They will simply move out of the country into a more favorable tax situation. The wealthy will move their money off-shore and invest in the Asian or European markets rather than American. Businesses will move off shore and take their jobs with them. (If you are interested in some comedy, read about Hillary Clinton trying to figure out how to tax people that move their money off shore… you can’t Hillary, nice try)

The idea that Obama will cut taxes for the “middle class” and raise taxes on capital gains and business is almost frighteningly naive. Businesses do not pay taxes, they simply pass the cost of the tax on to the consumer. So who is paying for his 30% bigger federal budget and plans for housing and feeding children all over the world? (source: his website, another international Marxist idea). Yep, we do.

If you want to know what an Obama economy will look like… think Jimmy Carter.

John McCain believes in smaller federal government, a lower and (hopefully) flat tax rate, toss off federal regulation where it doesn’t belong, and send Pelosi and Reid a wake-up call to let them know the rights to drill offshore and in ANWR are not theirs to give or deny. We own the water, we own the federal land… not them.

More Marxist Obama ideas…
1. Fairness Doctrine
2. Expanded Welfare
3. Using American tax dollars to fund a worldwide redistribution of wealth (his website)
4. The “death tax”
5. Employee “free choice” act

“That government is best which governs least” TP

I THINK YOU SHOULD POINT OUT THAT OBAMA IS GOING TO TAX ALL THE TOP SPORTSMEN WHO EARN THAN $250 K OR MORE

PRO GOLFERS
BASEBALL, GRIDIRON, NBA, TENNIS ETC (AND ALL OF THE HOLLYWOOD LOUTS ) INCLUDING ALL THEIR SPONSERS HOPE YOU CAN USE THIS TO ADVANTAGE

Your add is about as weak as Sara Palin’s command of the english language!

BEFORE YOU TALK ABOUT OBAMA, GET PALIN STRAIGHT!
ALASKA HAS THE HIGHEST RATE PER CAPITA FOR VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN.
PALIN DOES NOT SUPPORT THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT, EVEN MORE SHE MAKES THE VICTIM PAY FOR THE RAPE KIT, HOW CRUEL.

Stupid is as Stupid does!

Go Check the facts,and quit watching stupid tv.
As Mcbush started falling in the polls, his campain started this BS! What is he suppossed to do? Barack Obama did not , and has not lied
about anything. I know I cannot stand the idea
of anyone who has to lie and spin facts just to get elected.No Way, No Mc Cain.Wake up folks.
PLEASE!

Question for both Senators.

I work for a company that receives Top Secret Military Projects. In order to work on such Top Secret projects I have to pass an FBI background check from my birth to present. My son who is in the Army and was applying to serve on Special Forces was also succumbed to the same security background check.
If I’d had questionable contacts such as Senator Obama has, I would not have received Secret clearance to work on such highly sensitive military programs.

The reason I’m asking this is that if working on a US government Top Secret project is so important to ensure that the employee may not have any criminal record nor have questionable past contacts or activities that might compromise government top secret information then it would be a thousand times more critical that government officials be scrutinize much closer. How is it that a Presidential candidate who would have access to any Top Secret information and who will be the Military’s Commander-in-Chief does not have to also pass an even more stringent background scrutiny? This information should be required and should be revealed to the public.

Will both Senators right now verbally agree with a ‘YES’ to immediately allow the FBI to conduct a full background check from birth to present by completing the FBI Background form within 24 hours, and to have the FBI report displayed on line with out any censorship so that the voters can better know each candidates. This FBI back ground check is to be completed 7 days before Election Day so that another town hall meeting can be prepared so each candidate can answer voter’s questions regarding the background check information.

Brian T:

Interesting question, and I would think that it would be a great idea. Some may be concerned that the FBI could be politically influenced by either party, so we wouldn’t want skewed reports. Remember the Hoover days? It could be scary.

You sleazeballs! You refuse to publish my comment, since it goes against the GOP grain of thought..
You have ZERO credibility!!!