On Sex-Ed Ad, McCain Is Right

National Review Online: What Was That Illinois Sex-Education Bill Really About?

(National Review Online)  This column was written by Byron York.

---

In recent days, a consensus has developed among the Obama campaign and commentators in the press that John McCain has decided to lie his way to the White House. Exhibit A in this new consensus is McCain’s ad, released last week, claiming that Barack Obama's “one accomplishment” in the field of education was “legislation to teach ‘comprehensive sex education’ to kindergartners.”

Within moments of the ad’s appearance, the Obama campaign called it “shameful and downright perverse.” The legislation in question, a bill in the Illinois State Senate that was supported but not sponsored by Obama, was, according to Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton, “written to protect young children from sexual predators” and had nothing to do with comprehensive sex education for kindergartners. In a stinging final shot, Burton added, “Last week, John McCain told Time magazine he couldn’t define what honor was. Now we know why.”

Newspaper, magazine, and television commentators quickly piled on. “The kindergarten ad flat-out lies,” wrote the New York Times, arguing that “at most, kindergarteners were to be taught the dangers of sexual predators.” The Washington Post wrote that “McCain’s ‘Education’ Spot is Dishonest, Deceptive.” And in a column in The Hill, the influential blogger Josh Marshall called the sex-education spot “a rancid, race-baiting ad based on [a] lie. Willie Horton looks mild by comparison.”

The condemnation has been so widespread that the Obama campaign has begun to sense success in placing the “McCain-is-a-liar” storyline in the press. But before accepting the story at face value, it might first be a good idea to examine the bill in question, look at the statements made by its supporters at the time it was introduced, talk to its sponsors today (at least the ones who will consent to speak), and find answers to a few basic questions. What were the bill’s provisions? Why was it written? Was it really just, or even mostly, about inappropriate advances? And the bottom-line question: Is McCain’s characterization of it unfair?

21st-CENTURY SEX EDUCATION
The bill in question was Senate Bill 99, introduced in the Senate in February 2003. Its broad purpose was to change and update portions of Illinois’s existing laws concerning sex education. (The text of the bill is here, and everyone interested in the issue should take a look at it.)

When the bill was introduced, a coalition of groups including the Illinois Public Health Association, the Illinois State Medical Society, the Cook County Department of Public Health, the Chicago Department of Public Health, the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council and others issued a press release headlined “Coalition of Legislators, Physicians and Organizations Bring Illinois Into the 21st Century with Omnibus Healthcare Package.” It was a three-part campaign; Senate Bill 99, covering “medically accurate sex education,” was the first part, with two other bills addressing “funding for family planning services for women in need” and “contraceptive equity in health insurance.”

According to the press release, Senate Bill 99 required that “if a public school teaches sex education, family life education, and comprehensive health education courses, all materials and instruction must be medically and factually accurate.” The bill’s main sponsor, Sen. Carol Ronen, was quoted saying, “It teaches students about the advantages of abstinence, while also giving them the realistic information they need about the prevention of an unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections.” The release contained no mention of sexual predators or inappropriate touching.

What, specifically, was the bill designed to do? It appears to have had three major purposes:

The first, as Ronen indicated, was to mandate that information presented in sex-ed classes be “factual,” “medically accurate,” and “objective.”

The second purpose was to increase the number of children receiving sex education. Illinois’ existing law required the teaching of sex education and AIDS prevention in grades six through twelve. The old law read:

Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades 6 through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention, transmission and spread of AIDS.

Senate Bill 99 struck out grade six, changing it to kindergarten, in addition to making a few other changes in wording. It read:

Each class or course in comprehensive sex education in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV.

The bill’s third purpose was to remove value-laden language in the old law. For example, the old law contained passages like this:

Course material and instruction shall teach honor and respect for monogamous heterosexual marriage.
Course material and instruction shall stress that pupils should abstain from sexual intercourse until they are ready for marriage…
[Classes] shall emphasize that abstinence is the expected norm in that abstinence from sexual intercourse is the only protection that is 100 percent effective against unwanted teenage pregnancy [and] sexually transmitted diseases…

The proposed bill eliminated all those passages and replaced them with wording like this:

Course material and instruction shall include a discussion of sexual abstinence as a method to prevent unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV.
Course material and instruction shall present the latest medically factual information regarding both the possible side effects and health benefits of all forms of contraception, including the success and failure rates for the prevention of pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV…

The bill gave parents and guardians the right to take their children out of sex-ed classes by presenting written objections. The bill also specified that “all sex education courses that discuss sexual activity or behavior…be age and developmentally appropriate.” And, after covering a number of other provisions, the bill addressed the issue of inappropriate advances:

Course material and instruction shall teach pupils to not make unwanted physical and verbal sexual advances and how to say no to unwanted sexual advances and shall include information about verbal, physical, and visual sexual harassment, including without limitation nonconsensual sexual advances, nonconsensual physical sexual contact, and rape by an acquaintance. The course material and instruction shall contain methods of preventing sexual assault by an acquaintance, including exercising good judgment and avoiding behavior that impairs one’s judgment. The course material and instruction shall emphasize personal accountability and respect for others and shall also encourage youth to resist negative peer pressure. The course material and instruction shall inform pupils of the potential legal consequences of sexual assault by an acquaintance. Specifically, pupils shall be advised that it is unlawful to touch an intimate part of another person as specified in the Criminal Code of 1961.

The wording of that provision suggests lawmakers were at least as concerned with protecting children from each other as from adults, and it doesn’t seem directed toward the youngest children, as Obama maintained. But there is no doubt that the bill did address the question of inappropriate touching. On the other hand, there is also no doubt that, looking at the overall bill, the “touching” provision did not have the prominence that Team Obama has suggested it had, and it certainly wasn’t the bill’s main purpose.

Continued

• 1
• 2
• Next

By Byron York
Reprinted with permission from National Review Online

America's Premier Site for Conservative News, Analysis, and Opinion.

Share:

Digg

Facebook

Yahoo! Buzz

Twitter

Video and Galleries from Opinion

• Video Ginuwine On Jackson
• Video Andy Sheds Some Clothes
• Video Separating Icons From Heroes

Latest in Opinion

Fear and Loathing in Health Care Reform

Mark Sanford's Political Obituary

Round Wheel Roll!"

Add a Comment See all 32 Comments

by September 16, 2008 5:18 PM PDT

I''m from Illinois, and a woman. Waiting until Grade 6 is TOO LONG. I hit puberty in grade 5, and puberty is the experation date for when this type of educatuin needs to have started. The age needed to be lowered. The average age of puberty is dropping, it''s a medical fact, and laws need to be updated to reflect this.

Reply to this comment

by wogerwabbit September 16, 2008 5:39 PM PDT

"The fact is, the bill%u2019s intention was to mandate that issues like contraception and the prevention of sexually-transmitted diseases be included in ***-education classes for children before the sixth grade, and as early as kindergarten."

I can''t believe I read the whole thing. So what''s his point? What else would they teach in s e x education classes? Knitting? I''d venture to guess that if the writer didn''t have so many s e xual hang ups this wouldn''t bother him at all. NRO... wrong again.

Reply to this comment

by kevsan1 September 16, 2008 6:41 PM PDT

Looks like Obama has the votes of folks who both can''t read AND comprehend. Very scary for our nation. Byron York and Sen. Martinez have it correct.

Reply to this comment

by chalres-2009 September 16, 2008 6:54 PM PDT

kevsan1 I don''t get your comment. What is wrong with this bill. Do you think the just say no approach is working?

Reply to this comment

by paris1969 September 16, 2008 7:02 PM PDT

And like so many times before .. the same Media people who called McCain a liar .. including the ranting women on the View ... will not retract their comments even though they are aware that they were wrong!!
NOBAMA ... NOT NOW, NOT EVER!!

Reply to this comment

by wogerwabbit September 16, 2008 7:20 PM PDT

Posted by paris1969 at 07:02 PM : Sep 16, 2008

You''re delerious. Get help.

Reply to this comment

by jmurrieta11 September 16, 2008 7:24 PM PDT

Sarah Palin''s daughter is preggie. There seems to be a *** ed gap in the Palin household.

"No, no, honey, when I said it was Jesus who brings babies, I didn''t mean you could screw Mr. Redneck Backwoods without birth control!"

Reply to this comment

by barrylies September 16, 2008 7:38 PM PDT

Anybody who did any research on this at all knows that the ad was correct!! Unfortunately, Obama''s supporters are "Low information" voters, if they can''t get it on his website, they don''t believe it to be true!! The media is getting ridiculous, when they are reporting about Sarah Palins tanning habits but fail to report about Obama?Soetoro''s Logan Act violations:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/john-stephenson/2008/09/16/why-media-ignoring-accusations-obama-interfered-iraq-withdrawal-neg

And what about this FEDERAL LAWSUIT?

www.obamacrimes.com

It appears that little Barry Soetoro, Indonesian citizen will have to prove he is eligible in Federal Court!! UH-OH!! The race card won''t work in court little Barry!! LMAO!!

McCain/Palin 08
Hillary 2012

Soetoro,...never!!

Reply to this comment

by jmurrieta11 September 16, 2008 8:03 PM PDT

"Soetoro,...never!!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by BARRYLIES



Your racist BS don''t cut it--but go collect your toaster from the McCain campaign!!

Reply to this comment

by amrt5016 September 16, 2008 11:35 PM PDT

All you have to do to settle the issue is go to the exact language of the law as it applies to kindergarten. What is so hard about that? But I have to read the law as drafted for myself since NRO is NEVER known to be objective, factual and truthful. I doubt NRO will make an exception this time. Especially, not in an election year. As for McCain, he has lied so many times he''s giving Bush a run for the money as far as who is being a bigger liar.

Reply to this comment

by idnnsg September 16, 2008 11:39 PM PDT

The repugs can''t seem to understand the meaning of "appropriate to the various grade levels", as clearly stated in the bill! The NRO LIED, the McCain campaign LIED, + McCain lies every effing day! Show him video of himself saying something and he''ll claim "I didn''t say that!"

The repugs are caught by their short hairs and they know it! All the NRO has left is LIES, DAMM LIES, AND DANGEROUS DELUSIONS.

McCain: He doesn''t know NOTHIN'' about the economy! He was against torture (doesn''t work) before he was for it (it''s popular with re.tards). He was against offshore drilling before he was for it. (After the oil companies donated to his campaign!) He was a "maverick" who wanted "reform" before he kissed Bush''s derriere, then he was against it! Now is "for it" again, claiming to be the "real agent of change"! How can he bring change or "reform" to the government he''s been PART OF for decades?

Palin''s another big LIAR!

She was absolutely FOR the "bridge to nowhere" until it became too unpopular. She is such a "great leader" that she left her tiny city hugely in debt when her term as mayor ended, even though she hired lobbyists to get lots of pork for her city. Her idea of saving money was to make r.a.p.e victims pay for their own "r.a.p.e kits"! She is a lun.atic "end-timer" who will "bring back Jesus by ending the world". If you want your kids to die, if you want your friends and neighbors to all die, if you want the world to end... then vote for Palin/McCain!

Reply to this comment

by element51 September 16, 2008 11:54 PM PDT

This article is typical example of what one can expect from NRO. As a victim of abuse at the age of 11 by a priest I can tell you that I wish I would have had some sort of education that would have helped tell me what to do. I did not and I cannot begin to explain the agony I went through. I was terrified and did not know where to turn as I was told that no one would believe me. You tight arsed republicans need to get your minds out of the gutter and realize that educating your kids about s e x is not going to cause them to become s e x fiends. How can you expect kids to know how to react when you refuse to equip them with the knowledge necessary to access the situation. I read the bill and thought it was very well written and that it would probably help lots of kids. The add in question tries to lead us to believe that Obama is in favor of teaching 5 year olds how to use condoms before teaching them how to read. How ridicilous. One other thing. Many years later I learned that my brother who is 6 years younger than I was also was molested by the same priest. I was in my late 40''s when I learned this. He, too, did not know what to do. Some knowledge would have been helpful.

Reply to this comment

by element51 September 17, 2008 12:04 AM PDT

IDNNSG.....A thousand thank you''s for your post. You are so right on in what you said. I am so sick of these lying basstards and religious freaks that I could scream. I want to hear about the issues that are dragging our country down the drain instead of being told that "I have foreign relations experiance because I can see Russia from here." This woman hit the stage lying, "I told them thanks but no thanks" and hasn''t stopped since. I would rather have seen McCain pick Huckabee than Palin and he is a religious nutcase. Hopefully the Americans will get their heads out of their arses in time and realize that Palin/McCain is the wrong way to go. I noticed that you placed Palin''s name first too. I do that because it is Palin who is leading the ticket.

Reply to this comment

by shankuniyogi September 17, 2008 12:57 AM PDT

Byron York, like so many other commentators on the campaign circuit these days, needs a refresher in 1st year logic.

The paragraph "Each class or course in comprehensive *** education in any of grades K through 12 shall..." does not prescribe that comprehensive *** education be expanded beyond Grade 6. It merely expands the earlier clause to include training about preventing STDs and AIDS to all comprehensive *** education classes in all grades. It certainly does not prescribe teaching comprehensive *** education to kindergarteners, and the bill clearly mandates "age-appropriateness" elsewhere.

Reply to this comment

by horse3farm September 17, 2008 1:56 AM PDT

Reading these comments, it appears you all are missing the point. The point is whether McCain''s ad is a lie or the truth. Not the merits of *** education. It appears it is the truth, albeit using words out of context maybe, but advertising has done that for eons. Point is...Obama is now the liar. Now he has to lie to cover up his lie. Hilarious.

Reply to this comment

by samthetvcat September 17, 2008 3:57 AM PDT

I read on Politico that historians have shown that McCain''s camp is far from the ''sleaziest campaign in history'' or whatever Obama was claiming.

So hasn''t Obama therefore lied?

That''s a good enough face saver for me - best to stick with the issues, because it looks like McCain''s doing well enough with the base maybe he just needs to focus on reassuring skittish swing voters (?)

Reply to this comment

by aakalan September 17, 2008 7:12 AM PDT

Do you Neocon idiots read English? Do you know what "grade" and "appropriate" mean?

Of course you do. You just have a vested interest in defending and spreading McCain''s lies. It''s what you''ve done. It''s how you got us into Iraq.

NRO = Neocon = liar.

The stench of your articles makes me sick.

Reply to this comment

by ioweign September 17, 2008 8:17 AM PDT

I read on Politico that historians have shown that McCain''s camp is far from the ''sleaziest campaign in history'' or whatever Obama was claiming.

Posted by SamTheTVCat at 03:57 AM : Sep 17, 2008


Well, that is some talking points to be proud of...

That is like Saddam saying "Hitler gassed more people than me!"...

Reply to this comment

by roger3815 September 17, 2008 9:37 AM PDT

No, McCain is wrong and so is the NRO.

Reply to this comment

by ofbyfor2 September 17, 2008 9:52 AM PDT

Mr. York obvious failed in his debating and logic classes, because he changes horses in midstream.

In the 1st paragraph he quotes the McCain ad''s statement that it was ''legislation to teach %u2018comprehensive s.e.x. education%u2019 to kindergartners''.

Comprehensive used in this sense means all-inclusive or complete, and McCain''s ad implies that the intent was to teach all about s.e.x. to kindergarteners.

That is what people have objected to, because it is absolutely and obviously untrue.

''The bill gave parents and guardians the right to take their children out of s.e.x.-ed classes by presenting written objections. The bill also specified that %u201Call s.e.x. education courses that discuss s.e.x.ual activity or behavior%u2026be AGE and developmentally appropriate.%u201D

What part of opt-out and age-appropriate do you not understand, Mr. York? Why do you have a problem with allowing local communities to decide on what they feel is age-appropriate?

Changing the focus from what McCain''s ad said to whether or not the legislation was written SOLELY ''to protect young children from s.e.x.ual predators'' is a garbage argument, especially since no one ever said it was written SOLELY for that purpose.

Grade= F, Mr York.

Reply to this comment

by pdchapin September 17, 2008 9:52 AM PDT

According to this article, the charge that the McCain charge is dishonest is correct. There is a difference between a law that requires schools that choose to teach *** education to do so accurately and in an age appropriate manner and one that requires comprehensive *** education for kindergarten.

Reply to this comment

by ofbyfor2 September 17, 2008 10:28 AM PDT

Mr. York obvious failed in his debating and logic classes, because he changes horses in midstream.

In the 1st paragraph he quotes the McCain ad''s statement that it was ''legislation to teach ''comprehensive s.e.x. education'' to kindergartners''.

Comprehensive used in this sense means all-inclusive or complete, and McCain''s ad implies that the intent was to teach all about s.e.x. to kindergarteners.

That is what people have objected to, because it is absolutely and obviously untrue.

''The bill gave parents and guardians the right to take their children out of s.e.x.-ed classes by presenting written objections. The bill also specified that all s.e.x. education courses that discuss s.e.x.ual activity or behavior be AGE and developmentally appropriate''.

What part of opt-out and age-appropriate do you not understand, Mr. York? Why do you have a problem with allowing local communities to decide on what they feel is age-appropriate?

Changing the focus from what McCain''s ad said to whether or not the legislation was written SOLELY ''to protect young children from s.e.x.ual predators'' is a garbage argument, especially since no one ever said it was written SOLELY for that purpose.

Grade= F, Mr York.

Reply to this comment

by smoq-2009 September 17, 2008 11:00 AM PDT

why does the title say the ad is right when it is obviously wrong, too many people do not read this si so misleading, don''t tell me that it was intended to create a buzz. it is so wrong, where is our morality.
the ad is a lie, the bill teaches about avoiding and reconizing predators. helps children be more informed so they do not get abducted.
my God save us all from horrible people

Reply to this comment

by ofbyfor2 September 17, 2008 11:06 AM PDT

why does the title say the ad is right when it is obviously wrong, too many people do not read this si so misleading, don''''t tell me that it was intended to create a buzz. it is so wrong, where is our morality.
the ad is a lie, the bill teaches about avoiding and reconizing predators. helps children be more informed so they do not get abducted.
my God save us all from horrible people

Posted by SmoQ at 11:00 AM : Sep 17, 2008

Because it is an opinion piece and the author is deceptive and uses garbage ''logic''. Just like McCain''s ad.

Actually, I should have just said, ''Because it''s the NRO'', LOL.

Reply to this comment

by tawpdawg111 September 17, 2008 12:49 PM PDT

You can smear a tube of lipstick the size of a silo on this PIG, Mr. York, but is still gonna be a stinking, LYING pig.

Now call your boss and tell him the story went over like a dead fish wrapped in paper.

Reply to this comment

by tawpdawg111 September 17, 2008 12:55 PM PDT

it looks like McCain''''s doing well enough with the base maybe he just needs to focus on reassuring skittish swing voters (?)


Posted by SamTheTVCat
====================

Is his base STUPID enough to buy into this ad''s claim?
Will skittish swing voters say "WOW! Obama wants to have seks with kindergartners after he teaches them how at the grade school?"

God, please don''t allow people so easily suckered to make their way into a voting booth. In the meantime, God, please expose the LIAR, strip him bare. Amen.

Reply to this comment

by September 17, 2008 1:01 PM PDT

The CBS Rules of Engagement state "no lying, no fabricating", so how was this op-ed piece even posted?

Reply to this comment

by wakeup60 September 17, 2008 1:24 PM PDT

McCain.......whomever is your slammer/jammer man or "woman with lipstick issues" that are trying...but not suceeding to slam Obama with Total Gargage and Slander LIKE THIS BLATANT LIE...is totally SOMETHING BEYOND unbelievable...that they think they are going to get away with all this crapola...and on this issue/mean and vicious LIE...for what??? It only shows McCain''s real side...IT IS TRYING TO WIN THE WHITE HOUSE BY LYING TO THE TOP/SORRY,JOHN BOY/HOW DUMB DO YOU THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE OUT HERE...HOW DARE YOU SACRIFICE "TREES FOR THEIR PAPER TO PRINT THIS STENCH! BAD NEWS BOYS...COME NOVEMBER!
OBAMA/BIDEN WILL BE THE WINNING TEAM ON ALL COUNTS!

Reply to this comment

by mitch5511 September 17, 2008 2:49 PM PDT

As usual, the National Review is publishing drivel that has no basis in fact! Another GOP mouthpiece like FOX news!

Reply to this comment

by tawpdawg111 September 17, 2008 4:08 PM PDT

Ummmmm....actually, on the, um, Seks-ed ad McCain was WRONG and it was the dealbreaker for me. My vote will go to the candidate of HONOR.

Reply to this comment

by sanfelz September 18, 2008 2:29 PM PDT

Bush apologists and campaign McCain spinners flail about trying to justify supporting an out-of-touch Bush clone. A more germane subject for NRO to discuss is the effect this financial meltdown would have had on individual retirement accounts if Social Security privitization had been instituted.

Reply to this comment

by noloyalisti September 19, 2008 2:37 PM PDT

If only Republicons and their simple minded servants at the National Republicon Order (NRO) were not so against education. Of course they are against government, workers, middle class, freedom of speech, women''s rights, peace and the rule of law so it doesn''t surprise me.

Reply to this comment

See all 32 Comments

Add a comment

Comment SUBMIT

Click here to add another comment.

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.

Comment reply

Submit Cancel

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.

Report offensive content:

If you believe this comment is offensive or violates the CBSNews.com Terms of Use, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the comment). Once reported, our staff will be notified and the comment will be reviewed.

Select type of offense:

Offensive: Sexually explicit or offensive language

Spam: Advertisements or commercial links

Disruptive posting: Flaming or offending other users

Illegal activities: Promote cracked software, or other illegal content

Comments (optional):

Report Cancel

E-mail this comment to a friend.

E-mail this to: (Separate multiple e-mail addresses with commas. Limited to 10 addresses.)

Your e-mail address:

Send me a copy of this message

Note: Your e-mail address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the e-mail and in case of transmission error. Neither your address nor the recipients's address will be used for any other purpose.

Add your own personal message: (Optional)

Hi, I found this user's comment on CBSNews.com and thought you might be interested in reading it. Send e-mail Cancel

I''m from Illinois, and a woman. Waiting until Grade 6 is TOO LONG. I hit puberty in grade 5, and puberty is the experation date for when this type of educatuin needs to have started. The age needed to be lowered. The average age of puberty is dropping, it''s a medical fact, and laws need to be updated to reflect this.

[wogerwabbit]

"The fact is, the bill%u2019s intention was to mandate that issues like contraception and the prevention of sexually-transmitted diseases be included in ***-education classes for children before the sixth grade, and as early as kindergarten."

I can''t believe I read the whole thing. So what''s his point? What else would they teach in s e x education classes? Knitting? I''d venture to guess that if the writer didn''t have so many s e xual hang ups this wouldn''t bother him at all. NRO... wrong again.

[kevsan1]

Looks like Obama has the votes of folks who both can''t read AND comprehend. Very scary for our nation. Byron York and Sen. Martinez have it correct.

[chalres-2009]

kevsan1 I don''t get your comment. What is wrong with this bill. Do you think the just say no approach is working?

[paris1969]

And like so many times before .. the same Media people who called McCain a liar .. including the ranting women on the View ... will not retract their comments even though they are aware that they were wrong!!
NOBAMA ... NOT NOW, NOT EVER!!

[wogerwabbit]

Posted by paris1969 at 07:02 PM : Sep 16, 2008

You''re delerious. Get help.

[jmurrieta11]

Sarah Palin''s daughter is preggie. There seems to be a *** ed gap in the Palin household.

"No, no, honey, when I said it was Jesus who brings babies, I didn''t mean you could screw Mr. Redneck Backwoods without birth control!"

[barrylies]

Anybody who did any research on this at all knows that the ad was correct!! Unfortunately, Obama''s supporters are "Low information" voters, if they can''t get it on his website, they don''t believe it to be true!! The media is getting ridiculous, when they are reporting about Sarah Palins tanning habits but fail to report about Obama?Soetoro''s Logan Act violations:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/john-stephenson/2008/09/16/why-media-ignoring-accusations-obama-interfered-iraq-withdrawal-neg

And what about this FEDERAL LAWSUIT?

www.obamacrimes.com

It appears that little Barry Soetoro, Indonesian citizen will have to prove he is eligible in Federal Court!! UH-OH!! The race card won''t work in court little Barry!! LMAO!!

McCain/Palin 08
Hillary 2012

Soetoro,...never!!

[jmurrieta11]

"Soetoro,...never!!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by BARRYLIES



Your racist BS don''t cut it--but go collect your toaster from the McCain campaign!!

[amrt5016]

All you have to do to settle the issue is go to the exact language of the law as it applies to kindergarten. What is so hard about that? But I have to read the law as drafted for myself since NRO is NEVER known to be objective, factual and truthful. I doubt NRO will make an exception this time. Especially, not in an election year. As for McCain, he has lied so many times he''s giving Bush a run for the money as far as who is being a bigger liar.

[idnnsg]

The repugs can''t seem to understand the meaning of "appropriate to the various grade levels", as clearly stated in the bill! The NRO LIED, the McCain campaign LIED, + McCain lies every effing day! Show him video of himself saying something and he''ll claim "I didn''t say that!"

The repugs are caught by their short hairs and they know it! All the NRO has left is LIES, DAMM LIES, AND DANGEROUS DELUSIONS.

McCain: He doesn''t know NOTHIN'' about the economy! He was against torture (doesn''t work) before he was for it (it''s popular with re.tards). He was against offshore drilling before he was for it. (After the oil companies donated to his campaign!) He was a "maverick" who wanted "reform" before he kissed Bush''s derriere, then he was against it! Now is "for it" again, claiming to be the "real agent of change"! How can he bring change or "reform" to the government he''s been PART OF for decades?

Palin''s another big LIAR!

She was absolutely FOR the "bridge to nowhere" until it became too unpopular. She is such a "great leader" that she left her tiny city hugely in debt when her term as mayor ended, even though she hired lobbyists to get lots of pork for her city. Her idea of saving money was to make r.a.p.e victims pay for their own "r.a.p.e kits"! She is a lun.atic "end-timer" who will "bring back Jesus by ending the world". If you want your kids to die, if you want your friends and neighbors to all die, if you want the world to end... then vote for Palin/McCain!

[element51]

This article is typical example of what one can expect from NRO. As a victim of abuse at the age of 11 by a priest I can tell you that I wish I would have had some sort of education that would have helped tell me what to do. I did not and I cannot begin to explain the agony I went through. I was terrified and did not know where to turn as I was told that no one would believe me. You tight arsed republicans need to get your minds out of the gutter and realize that educating your kids about s e x is not going to cause them to become s e x fiends. How can you expect kids to know how to react when you refuse to equip them with the knowledge necessary to access the situation. I read the bill and thought it was very well written and that it would probably help lots of kids. The add in question tries to lead us to believe that Obama is in favor of teaching 5 year olds how to use condoms before teaching them how to read. How ridicilous. One other thing. Many years later I learned that my brother who is 6 years younger than I was also was molested by the same priest. I was in my late 40''s when I learned this. He, too, did not know what to do. Some knowledge would have been helpful.

[element51]

IDNNSG.....A thousand thank you''s for your post. You are so right on in what you said. I am so sick of these lying basstards and religious freaks that I could scream. I want to hear about the issues that are dragging our country down the drain instead of being told that "I have foreign relations experiance because I can see Russia from here." This woman hit the stage lying, "I told them thanks but no thanks" and hasn''t stopped since. I would rather have seen McCain pick Huckabee than Palin and he is a religious nutcase. Hopefully the Americans will get their heads out of their arses in time and realize that Palin/McCain is the wrong way to go. I noticed that you placed Palin''s name first too. I do that because it is Palin who is leading the ticket.

[shankuniyogi]

Byron York, like so many other commentators on the campaign circuit these days, needs a refresher in 1st year logic.

The paragraph "Each class or course in comprehensive *** education in any of grades K through 12 shall..." does not prescribe that comprehensive *** education be expanded beyond Grade 6. It merely expands the earlier clause to include training about preventing STDs and AIDS to all comprehensive *** education classes in all grades. It certainly does not prescribe teaching comprehensive *** education to kindergarteners, and the bill clearly mandates "age-appropriateness" elsewhere.

[horse3farm]

Reading these comments, it appears you all are missing the point. The point is whether McCain''s ad is a lie or the truth. Not the merits of *** education. It appears it is the truth, albeit using words out of context maybe, but advertising has done that for eons. Point is...Obama is now the liar. Now he has to lie to cover up his lie. Hilarious.

[samthetvcat]

I read on Politico that historians have shown that McCain''s camp is far from the ''sleaziest campaign in history'' or whatever Obama was claiming.

So hasn''t Obama therefore lied?

That''s a good enough face saver for me - best to stick with the issues, because it looks like McCain''s doing well enough with the base maybe he just needs to focus on reassuring skittish swing voters (?)

[aakalan]

Do you Neocon idiots read English? Do you know what "grade" and "appropriate" mean?

Of course you do. You just have a vested interest in defending and spreading McCain''s lies. It''s what you''ve done. It''s how you got us into Iraq.

NRO = Neocon = liar.

The stench of your articles makes me sick.

[ioweign]

I read on Politico that historians have shown that McCain''s camp is far from the ''sleaziest campaign in history'' or whatever Obama was claiming.

Posted by SamTheTVCat at 03:57 AM : Sep 17, 2008


Well, that is some talking points to be proud of...

That is like Saddam saying "Hitler gassed more people than me!"...

[roger3815]

No, McCain is wrong and so is the NRO.

[ofbyfor2]

Mr. York obvious failed in his debating and logic classes, because he changes horses in midstream.

In the 1st paragraph he quotes the McCain ad''s statement that it was ''legislation to teach %u2018comprehensive s.e.x. education%u2019 to kindergartners''.

Comprehensive used in this sense means all-inclusive or complete, and McCain''s ad implies that the intent was to teach all about s.e.x. to kindergarteners.

That is what people have objected to, because it is absolutely and obviously untrue.

''The bill gave parents and guardians the right to take their children out of s.e.x.-ed classes by presenting written objections. The bill also specified that %u201Call s.e.x. education courses that discuss s.e.x.ual activity or behavior%u2026be AGE and developmentally appropriate.%u201D

What part of opt-out and age-appropriate do you not understand, Mr. York? Why do you have a problem with allowing local communities to decide on what they feel is age-appropriate?

Changing the focus from what McCain''s ad said to whether or not the legislation was written SOLELY ''to protect young children from s.e.x.ual predators'' is a garbage argument, especially since no one ever said it was written SOLELY for that purpose.

Grade= F, Mr York.

[pdchapin]

According to this article, the charge that the McCain charge is dishonest is correct. There is a difference between a law that requires schools that choose to teach *** education to do so accurately and in an age appropriate manner and one that requires comprehensive *** education for kindergarten.

[ofbyfor2]

Mr. York obvious failed in his debating and logic classes, because he changes horses in midstream.

In the 1st paragraph he quotes the McCain ad''s statement that it was ''legislation to teach ''comprehensive s.e.x. education'' to kindergartners''.

Comprehensive used in this sense means all-inclusive or complete, and McCain''s ad implies that the intent was to teach all about s.e.x. to kindergarteners.

That is what people have objected to, because it is absolutely and obviously untrue.

''The bill gave parents and guardians the right to take their children out of s.e.x.-ed classes by presenting written objections. The bill also specified that all s.e.x. education courses that discuss s.e.x.ual activity or behavior be AGE and developmentally appropriate''.

What part of opt-out and age-appropriate do you not understand, Mr. York? Why do you have a problem with allowing local communities to decide on what they feel is age-appropriate?

Changing the focus from what McCain''s ad said to whether or not the legislation was written SOLELY ''to protect young children from s.e.x.ual predators'' is a garbage argument, especially since no one ever said it was written SOLELY for that purpose.

Grade= F, Mr York.

[smoq-2009]

why does the title say the ad is right when it is obviously wrong, too many people do not read this si so misleading, don''t tell me that it was intended to create a buzz. it is so wrong, where is our morality.
the ad is a lie, the bill teaches about avoiding and reconizing predators. helps children be more informed so they do not get abducted.
my God save us all from horrible people

[ofbyfor2]

why does the title say the ad is right when it is obviously wrong, too many people do not read this si so misleading, don''''t tell me that it was intended to create a buzz. it is so wrong, where is our morality.
the ad is a lie, the bill teaches about avoiding and reconizing predators. helps children be more informed so they do not get abducted.
my God save us all from horrible people

Posted by SmoQ at 11:00 AM : Sep 17, 2008

Because it is an opinion piece and the author is deceptive and uses garbage ''logic''. Just like McCain''s ad.

Actually, I should have just said, ''Because it''s the NRO'', LOL.

[tawpdawg111]

You can smear a tube of lipstick the size of a silo on this PIG, Mr. York, but is still gonna be a stinking, LYING pig.

Now call your boss and tell him the story went over like a dead fish wrapped in paper.

[tawpdawg111]

it looks like McCain''''s doing well enough with the base maybe he just needs to focus on reassuring skittish swing voters (?)


Posted by SamTheTVCat
====================

Is his base STUPID enough to buy into this ad''s claim?
Will skittish swing voters say "WOW! Obama wants to have seks with kindergartners after he teaches them how at the grade school?"

God, please don''t allow people so easily suckered to make their way into a voting booth. In the meantime, God, please expose the LIAR, strip him bare. Amen.

The CBS Rules of Engagement state "no lying, no fabricating", so how was this op-ed piece even posted?

[wakeup60]

McCain.......whomever is your slammer/jammer man or "woman with lipstick issues" that are trying...but not suceeding to slam Obama with Total Gargage and Slander LIKE THIS BLATANT LIE...is totally SOMETHING BEYOND unbelievable...that they think they are going to get away with all this crapola...and on this issue/mean and vicious LIE...for what??? It only shows McCain''s real side...IT IS TRYING TO WIN THE WHITE HOUSE BY LYING TO THE TOP/SORRY,JOHN BOY/HOW DUMB DO YOU THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE OUT HERE...HOW DARE YOU SACRIFICE "TREES FOR THEIR PAPER TO PRINT THIS STENCH! BAD NEWS BOYS...COME NOVEMBER!
OBAMA/BIDEN WILL BE THE WINNING TEAM ON ALL COUNTS!

[mitch5511]

As usual, the National Review is publishing drivel that has no basis in fact! Another GOP mouthpiece like FOX news!

[tawpdawg111]

Ummmmm....actually, on the, um, Seks-ed ad McCain was WRONG and it was the dealbreaker for me. My vote will go to the candidate of HONOR.

[sanfelz]

Bush apologists and campaign McCain spinners flail about trying to justify supporting an out-of-touch Bush clone. A more germane subject for NRO to discuss is the effect this financial meltdown would have had on individual retirement accounts if Social Security privitization had been instituted.

[noloyalisti]

If only Republicons and their simple minded servants at the National Republicon Order (NRO) were not so against education. Of course they are against government, workers, middle class, freedom of speech, women''s rights, peace and the rule of law so it doesn''t surprise me.