A Black American's Perspective on Why Barack Obama is not Good For America

"I urge you, don't put your race before your principles, before the truth, before your family, and before your country." -- William Owens, Jr.

You've read David Freddoso's "The Case Against Barack Obama."

Then, you read Jerome Corsi's "The Obama Nation."

NOW you need to read it from a Black American's perspective:

Author William Owens, Jr. uniquely addresses the devastating "mindset" of Black America, which is to abdicate their core principles and beliefs for the addictive "feel good" words of a politician. And, polls are proving this out.

According to one Gallup Poll, an explosive 91 percent of Black Americans support Obama.

Owens argues that electing Obama as president will not only radically impact our society - in terms culture, traditions, and beliefs - and weaken our national security, but he will also set back Black America for decades to come.

"Obama: Why Black America Should Have Doubts" analyzes in depth:
• Who is Barack Obama?
• What does he believe? How does this differ with Black America's interests?
• How does Obama stand up in a side-by-side comparison with Martin Luther King, Jr.?
• What has Obama committed to do if elected?
• How will Obama's tax-laden agenda actually hurt Black America? All America?
• Are Black Americans hurting themselves by being too focused on race?
• How can Black America - and all America - preserve our foundation?

Owens confesses,

"I recognize that I could be branded for the rest of my life for taking an unpopular stand against the first Black American to run for President of the United States. Nevertheless, I willingly accept the mantle that has fallen on me, and I am at peace with my decision because I must speak out."

"Through the writing of this book, my family and I are attempting to speak directly to Black American families. However, let it also be a clarion to all Americans."

With less than 7 weeks to go before the election, this is a "must read" - and "must give" - book.

"For those who suggest that Barack Obama advances the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, I say look again. His politics are anathema to the dream!" -- Dr. Alveda King (Niece to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.)

"The idea that so many Bible believers would consider choosing their racial ethnicity over their Christian ethics is alarming. William Owens, Jr. candidly brings eternal truths into the election 2008 discussion. 'Obama - Why Black America Should Have Doubts' is thoughtful, bold and refreshing." -- Star Parker, Author & Syndicated Columnist

Star-Parker-small

Star Parker

"Dr. King challenged us to judge a man not by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character. William Owens, Jr. is a rare Black American willing to hold Barack Obama to that necessary standard." -- Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, Author of "SCAM: How the Black Leadership Exploits Black America"; Founder and President of BOND, the Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny

jesse-peterson-small

Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson

"Obama: Why Black America Should Have Doubts" by  William Owens, Jr.

Wm-Owens-Formal-Pic-Small

William Owens, Jr.
(Article & book information: http://www.higherstandardpublishers.com/obamabook.html)
 
Senator Obama’s answer to the ills of society, of higher government spending, weaker national defense, continued tax dollars to Planned Parenthood, and support of gay marriage, are diametrically opposed to everything African Americans truly believe and an anathema to the dream of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. -- from the foreword by Dr. Alveda King (Niece to the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.)
 
William has cognately written this book where words cut like a two edged sword through rhetoric, political illusion and subtle deception. William has put on the glasses of truth like it says in Psalms 119:113 – I hate vain thoughts: but thy law do I love. This book acts like acts as a crucible where rhetoric is separated from truth. We might not like what his book uncovers but we must confront the truth as it is.
Dr. Edward Holliday, Dentist

Your book is excellent!! It's well researched, well written and beautifully published. Congratulations! -- Alice Patterson (Justice at the Gate author)

“Dr. King challenged us to judge a man not by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character. William Owens, Jr. is a rare Black American willing to hold Barack Obama to that necessary standard.” -- Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, Author: SCAM, How the Black Leadership Exploits Black America

As a Black American, I have developed serious doubts about Senator Barack Obama. Based on what I have seen, read and heard, I have come to view him as potentially dangerous – for our country and in particular for Black Americans.

Obama’s handsome features, physical stature, and eloquence combine to make him a charismatic politician. You must admit this can be a deadly combination for us as Black Americans. In my view, we tend to have an addiction to “feeling good.” We are easily satisfied with goose bumps that go no deeper than our first layer of skin. We are often afraid to look deeper – beyond the obvious – because then we would have to be responsible for our choices and refute the belief that a person who looks like us will automatically “take care of us.” It is the Black mindset that presses upon us to say, "Give the brother a chance.”

On one level I confess I understand this tendency, yet we as Black Americans must move beyond this. Would you let someone you did not know enter your family circle to date your daughter in order to “give him a chance?” I doubt you would. Therefore, does it make sense to vote for Barack Obama for the same reason? Do you really want to vote someone into the highest office in the land just to “give the brother a chance?”
 
The purpose of this book is to challenge you as a Black American to look deeper at Barack Obama the man, his voting record, and his position on the important issues facing our country, which, unfortunately, seem to change with the next newscast.

I believe when you take time to look closely and dispassionately – and if you are truly honest with yourself – you will see a politician who is charismatic but seriously devoid of the kind of experience that qualifies him to be President of the United States. I think you will see a young man who is anything but candid about who he is, what he really believes, and who his associates are. Under real scrutiny Barack Obama emerges as a continuously morphing, media-made cyborg candidate.
 
One is left asking “Who or what is behind the Barack Obama phenomenon?” I’m not alone in this assessment. I cannot tell you how many discussions I have had with both prominent and ordinary Black Americans who have expressed serious doubts about Barack Obama and where he will take us as a society and as a nation.

I urge you, don't put your race before your principles, before the truth, before your family, and before your country.

About the Author:
William Owens, Jr. is an accomplished author of seven books. He is president and founder of Higher Standard Enterprise, Inc. a multi-media company that is diversified into publishing, production and vision oriented pursuits. He is also Co-Founder of Black Americans for Real Change (http://www.blackarc.org/). Owens is a proud American and believes that a committed godly standard is imperative to keep Americans free. He and his wife, Selena, have been married for twenty-three years. They are the proud parents of four children and resides in North Carolina.


Idols of Crowds
Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, September 16, 2008

columnistsSowell1

"A human group transforms itself into a crowd when it suddenly responds to a suggestion rather than to reasoning, to an image rather than to an idea, to an affirmation rather than to proof, to the repetition of a phrase rather than to arguments, to prestige rather than to competence."

Jean-François Revel was not referring to the United States when he wrote those words, nor to his own France, but to human beings in general. He was certainly not referring to Barack Obama, whom he probably never heard of, since Revel died last year.

To find anything comparable to crowds' euphoric reactions to Obama, you would have to go back to old newsreels of German crowds in the 1930s, with their adulation of their fuehrer, Adolf Hitler. With hindsight, we can look back on those people with pity, knowing now how many of them would be led to their deaths by the man they idolized.

The exultation of the moment can exact a brutal price after that moment has passed. Nowhere is that truer than when it comes to picking the leader of a nation, which means entrusting that leader with the fate of millions today and of generations yet unborn.

A leader does not have to be evil to lead a country into a catastrophe. Inexperience and incompetence can create very similar results, perhaps even faster in a nuclear age, when even "a small country"-- as Senator Obama called Iran-- can wreak havoc anywhere in the world, when they are led by suicidal fanatics and supply nuclear weapons to terrorists who are likewise suicidal fanatics.

Barack Obama is truly a phenomenon of our time-- a presidential candidate who cannot cite a single serious accomplishment in his entire career, besides advancing his own career with rhetoric.

He has a rhetorical answer for everything. Those of us who talk about the threat of Iran are just engaging in "the politics of fear" according to Obama, something to distract us from "the real issues," such as raising taxes and handing out largesse with the proceeds.

Those who have studied the years leading up to World War II have been astonished by how many people and how many countries failed to see what Adolf Hitler was getting ready to do.

Even though Hitler telegraphed his punches, few people seemed to get the message. Books about that period have had such titles as "The Gathering Storm" and "Why England Slept."

Will future generations wonder why we slept? Why we could not see the gathering storm in Iran, where one of the world's leading oil producers is building nuclear facilities-- ostensibly to generate electricity, but whose obvious purpose is to produce nuclear bombs.

This is a country whose president has already threatened to wipe a neighboring country off the map. Does anyone need to draw pictures?

When terrorists get nuclear weapons, there will be no way to deter suicide bombers. We and our children will be permanently at the mercy of the merciless.

Yet what are we talking about? Taxing and spending policies, socking it to the oil companies and rescuing people who gambled on risky mortgages and lost.

Are we serious? Are we incapable of adult foresight and adult responsibility?

Barack Obama of course has his usual answer: talk. Rhetoric seems to be his answer to everything. Obama calls for "aggressive" diplomacy and "tough" negotiations with Iran.

These colorful adjectives may impress gullible voters but they are unlikely to impress fanatics who are willing to destroy themselves if they can destroy us in the process.

Just what is Senator Obama going to say to Iran that has not been said already? That we don't want them to develop nuclear weapons? That has already been said, every way that it can possibly be said. If talk was going to do the job, it would already have done it by now.

Go to the United Nations? What will they do, except issue warnings-- and when these are ignored, issue more warnings?

But what does Obama have besides talk -- and adoring crowds?


Letter to the Editor from a Cuban
From Richmond Times-Dispatch, Monday, July 7, 2008

Dear Editor, Times-Dispatch:

'Each year I get to celebrate Independence Day twice.  On June 30 I celebrate my independence day, and on July 4 I celebrate America's. This year is special, because it marks the 40th anniversary of my independence.

'On June 30, 1968, I escaped Communist Cuba, and a few months later, I was in the United States to stay.  That I happened to arrive in Richmond on Thanksgiving Day is just part of the story, but I digress.

'I've thought a lot about the anniversary this year.  The election-year rhetoric has made me think a lot about Cuba and what transpired there.  In the late 1950s, most Cubans thought Cuba needed a change, and they were right.  So when a young leader came along, every Cuban was at least receptive.

'When the young leader spoke eloquently and passionately and denounced the old system, the press fell in love with him.  They never questioned who his friends were or what he really believed in.  When he said he would help the farmers and the poor and bring free medical care and education to all, everyone followed.  When he said he would bring justice and equality to all, everyone said, 'Praise the Lord.' And when the young leader said, 'I will be for change and I'll bring you change,' everyone yelled, 'Viva Fidel!'

'But nobody asked about the change, so by the time the executioner's guns went silent, the people's guns had been taken away.  By the time everyone was equal, they were equally poor, hungry, and oppressed.  By the time everyone received their free education, it was worth nothing. By the time the press noticed, it was too late, because they were now working for him. By the time the change was finally implemented, Cuba had been knocked down a couple of notches to Third-World status.  By the time the change was over, more than a million people had taken to boats, rafts, and inner tubes.  You can call those who made it ashore anywhere else in the world the most fortunate Cubans.  And now I'm back to the beginning of my story.

'Luckily, we would never fall in America for a young leader who promised change without asking, what change?  How will you carry it out?  What will it cost America?

'Would we?'

Manuel Alvarez, Jr.
---

Catching Wild Pigs

A chemistry professor in a large college had some exchange students in the class.  One day while the class was in the lab the Professor noticed one young man (exchange student) who kept rubbing his back, and stretching as if his back hurt.

The professor asked the young man what was the matter. The student told him he had a bullet lodged in his back.  He had been shot while fighting communists in his native country who were trying to overthrow his country's government and install a new communist government.

In the midst of his story he looked at the professor and asked a strange question. He asked, 'Do you know how to catch wild pigs?'

The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line.

The young man said this was no joke. 'You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come everyday to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming.

When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side. The pigs, who are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat, you slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd.

Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity.

The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees happening to America. The government keeps pushing us toward socialism and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare, medicine, drugs, etc.. While we continually lose our freedoms -- just a little at a time.

One should always remember: There is no such thing as a free lunch! Also, a politician will never provide a service for you cheaper than you can do it yourself.

Also, if you see that all of this wonderful government 'help' is a problem confronting the future of democracy in America, you might want to send this on to your friends. If you think the free ride is essential to your way of life then you will probably delete this email, but God help you when the gate slams shut!

In this 'very important' election year, listen closely to what the candidates are promising you! Just maybe you will be able to tell who is about to slam the gate on America.

'A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have.' - Thomas Jefferson

For more on how the "utopian experiment" of communism took the lives of over 100 million innocent souls in the 20th century, see the recently published The Black Book of Communism (Harvard University Press.) for a  precisely documented account of this unprecedented -- and as yet unpunished -- outrage against humanity.
---

What is Marxism?

Marxism is an economic and social system based upon the political and economic theories of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. While it would take veritably volumes to explain the full implications and ramifications of the Marxist social and economic ideology, Marxism is summed up in the Encarta Reference Library as “a theory in which class struggle is a central element in the analysis of social change in Western societies.” Marxism is the antithesis of capitalism which is defined by Encarta as “an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods, characterized by a free competitive market and motivation by profit.” Marxism is the system of socialism of which the dominant feature is public ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange.

Under capitalism, the proletariat, the working class or “the people,” own only their capacity to work; they have the ability only to sell their own labor. According to Marx a class is defined by the relations of its members to the means of production. He proclaimed that history is the chronology of class struggles, wars, and uprisings. Under capitalism, Marx continues, the workers, in order to support their families are paid a bare minimum wage or salary. The worker is alienated because he has no control over the labor or product which he produces. The capitalists sell the products produced by the workers at a proportional value as related to the labor involved. Surplus value is the difference between what the worker is paid and the price for which the product is sold.

An increasing immiseration of the proletariat occurs as the result of economic recessions; these recessions result because the working class is unable to buy the full product of their labors and the ruling capitalists do not consume all of the surplus value. A proletariat or socialist revolution must occur, according to Marx, where the state (the means by which the ruling class forcibly maintains rule over the other classes) is a dictatorship of the proletariat. Communism evolves from socialism out of this progression: the socialist slogan is “From each according to his ability, to each according to his work.” The communist slogan varies thusly: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

What were the Marxist views of religion? Because the worker under the capitalist regimes was miserable and alienated, religious beliefs were sustained. Religion, according to Marx was the response to the pain of being alive, the response to earthly suffering. In Towards a Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right (1844), Marx wrote, “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the feeling of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless circumstances.” Marx indicated in this writing that the working class, the proletariat was a true revolutionary class, universal in character and acquainted with universal suffering. This provided the need for religion.

For more information, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_Marxism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_and_Marxism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_communism
---

Barack Obama Lauded by Marxists
by Michael Gaynor
March 16, 2008

The Soviet Union collapsed, but Marxists did not disappear. For example, the Castro brothers still run Cuba, Daniel Ortega is back in charge of Nicaragua and African Marxists are vying for power in their homelands.

Unsurprisingly, Marxists from Africa to the Americas are lauding young Barack Obama as their "agent of change."

In Kenya, Raila Odinga, Barack's cousin, just secured the prime ministership after violent protests of the re-election of his rival, President Kibaki, in a disputed race with Odinga that suggest that Virginia Governor and current Richmond, Virginia Mayor Doug Wilder's warning of rioting if Democrat superdelegates don't rubberstamp Barack should be taken seriously.

The New York Times: "Rono Kibet, an [Odinga] supporter who less than two months ago was burning down the houses of members of Mr. Kibaki’s ethnic group, said: 'We will now stop the fighting. The agreement is very good.'"

"Good" from the perspective of that reported arsonist!

A source familiar with Kenyan politics warns Americans to look into Barack's Kenyan connections before they leap:

"--Raila Odinga is of the Luo tribe to which Obama's late African-Arab Muslim father belonged. Obama's older brother still lives there; Abongo 'Roy' Obama is a Luo activist and militant Muslim who argues that the black man must liberate himself from the poisoning influences of European culture. He urges his younger brother, Barack, to embrace his African heritage. Barack Obama has a Kenyan grandmother [my note: according to Kenyan usage, not a biological grandmother] and several African brothers and sisters as well.

"--Raila Odinga is Barack Obama's cousin.... Listen to Odinga interview with BBC reporter:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7176683.stm

"--Obama interrupted his New Hampshire campaigning to speak by phone with Odinga, and he did not speak with Kenyan President Mwai Kibaki. Would Obama put African tribal or family interests ahead of U.S. interests? (Investors Business Daily).

"--Odinga explained to another reporter that Obama would call him up to three times a day to check on the election in Kenya. It was controversial, you see. Raila Odinga is a Marxist, and he wants to make a majority Christian Kenya embrace Islamic customs: he wants Sharia law, and he made a pact with an Islamic hard-line group (their terrorist group name is on the Internet) to enforce this law as they see fit. Odinga wants to establish Sharia courts throughout the country; vows to ban booze, pork, and impose Muslim dress codes on women--moves highly favored by Barack Obama's older brother, Abongo 'Roy.'

"--Odinga claimed the election was rigged when he lost, then there were riots and a sort of civil war, but it was the Christians who were getting killed by the Muslims. Christians were burned alive in churches and they were macheted in the streets. It is reported that 1,000 people were killed when all was said and done. Right now, Odinga is claiming the presidency and fighting to be sole president, and in a diplomatic effort, the powers that be allowed him to be co-president until the election is figured out.

"--Odinga also had an interesting political strategist help with his campaign, an American, who used to be a campaign employee of Bill Clinton's. It is the first time that an American poitical strategist has worked on any Kenyan campaign. Recommended by Barack Obama? [Note: That strategist is Dick Morris. Ask him!}

"--Raila Odinga's official presidential website is similar to Barack Obama's, and Odinga's main campaign message and slogan is: CHANGE. Vote for Change. Agent of Change. Look at his website: http://www.raila07.com/

"Furthermore, Raila Odinga has close ties to an oil big shot: Sheik Abdullahi Abdi (oil $) chairs NAMLEF (National Muslim Leaders Forum) which Odinga signed a then secret pact with. (The document is actually available online.) This man has connections to Libyan socialist leader Muammar al-Gaddafi, who financially backed and supported Raila Odinga's campaign.

"--Also, Raila Odinga was educated in communist E. Germany, and his father Oginga Odinga led the communist opposition during the Cold War.

"--With al-Qaida strengthening its beachheads in Africa--from Algeria to Sudan to Somalia--the last thing the West needs is for pro-Western Kenya to fall into the hands of Islamic extremists."

The Castro brothers aren't the only Marxists in the Americas rooting for Barack.

This year International Herald Tribune celebrated Valentine's Day by published an AP article reporting the delight of Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega with the Obama campaign.

AP: "MANAGUA, Nicaragua: President Daniel Ortega, who led the 1979 revolution in Nicaragua, says Barack Obama's presidential bid is a 'revolutionary' phenomenon in the United States.

"'It's not to say that there is already a revolution under way in the U.S. ... but yes, they are laying the foundations for a revolutionary change,' the Sandinista leader said Wednesday night as he accepted an honorary doctorate from an engineering university.

"Ortega led a Soviet-backed government that battled U.S.-supported Contra rebels before he lost power in a 1990 election. He returned to office last year via the ballot box.

"In statements broadcast on Sandinista Radio La Primerisima, Ortega said he has 'faith in God and in the North American people, and above all in the youth, that the moment of great change in the U.S. will come and it will act differently, with justice and equality toward all nations.'"

With Marxists speaking of their "faith in God," perhaps even Chris Matthews will think twice about blithely accepting as true whatever someone says about their attitude toward religion.

But don't count of Chris. Check things out for yourself.
---

Thomas Sowell on Marxism
By Diana Hsieh @ 12:42 AM  

This morning, I finished reading Thomas Sowell's Marxism: Philosophy and Economics. In some ways, the book was quite frustrating. The discussion of Marxist philosophy was too basic, while the elucidation of the economics came across as little more than a series of floating abstractions. Although Sowell did offer some interesting arguments about the proper interpretation of Marx and Engles, the first eight chapters weren't all that enlightening by themselves. The ninth chapter on the lives of Marx and Engles was revealing in a disturbing kind of way, but it was the tenth chapter which was most philosophically illuminating.

In that final chapter, Sowell focuses on the great errors in the economic theories advanced by Marx and Engles. He argues that the central concept of "exploitation" depends upon the notion of "surplus value" -- and that this "crucial concept in the Marxian theoretical framework was insinuated rather than explicitly established, either logically or empirically" (190). Sowell writes:

As introduced in the fist volume of Capital, surplus value was defined simple as an "increment or excess over the original value" invested in production. From this definition, Marx glided quickly to the conclusion that labor was the factor responsible for this increment in value or of output... It was an assumption deeply embedded in classical economics... [an assumption] devastated by the new conceptions and analyses introduced by neo-classical economics while Capital was in its decades-long process of being prepared for publication.

As a theoretical system, Marxian economics begins the story of production in the middle--with firms, capital, and management already in existence somehow, and needing only the addition of labor to get production started. From that point on, output is a function of labor input, given all the other factors somehow already assembled, coordinated, and directed toward a particular economic purpose... [But] where there are multiple inputs, the division of output by one particular input is wholly arbitrary (190).

(I love the emphasis Sowell places on the somehow in this passage, as it reminds me of Ayn Rand's own characterization of the economics espoused by the looters in Atlas Shrugged.)

A few pages later, Sowell summarizes thusly: "Once output is seen as a function of numerous inputs, and the inputs are supplied by more than one class of people, the notion that surplus value arises from [the] labor [of the proletariat] becomes plainly arbitrary and unsupported (192)."

In addition to stressing the importance of the "managerial ability and entrepreneurial innovation" ignored by Marx, Sowell also notes the importance of "worker's skills and experience" as a form of capital (194). Thus Marx engages in the "fundamental fallacy" of "narrowly conceiving capital to mean physical equipment rather than the human capital which may be vastly more valuable and far more widely dispersed" (195).

Sowell notes that Marx's method of starting in the middle allowed him to "repeatedly ignore the importance of knowledge and risk in explaining the phenomena of a capitalist economy" (198). How so? Because his analysis began with "surviving capitalist firms," i.e. "firms that had correctly estimated consumer demand" and were now "waiting to hire workers," Marx "ignored the key implication of failing firms (a majority of all firms in the long run)--that risk is inherent in anticipating consumer demand, and that profit derives from successfully assuming that risk, rather than from merely hiring people to perform the mechanical aspects of producing goods (198)." After all, "failing firms also hire workers--but their very failure shows that that is no guarantee of receiving surplus value" (198).

Sowell is careful not to blithely attribute the evils of 20th century communism to the communism advocated by Marx and Engles. But he does draw out a number of significant connections which render them both substantially responsible for the horrors of communism in practice. For example, he notes that "the fact that Marx and Engles refused to draw up details of such a [communist] society in advance constituted virtually a blank check for their successors" (206). In addition, "whatever Marx intended, the actual effect of the doctrine of historical justification was to provide wide latitude for the most sweeping violations of every moral principles and every sense of decency and humanity" (207).

Perhaps the most telling example of Marx's ideas in practice is the results of Lenin's early acceptance of the somehow approach to all but labor, as indicated by this quote from State and Revolution cited by Sowell:

Capitalist culture has created large-scale production, factories, railways, the postal service, telephones, etc., and on this basis the great majority of the functions of the old "state power" have become so simplified and can be reduced to such exceedingly simple operations of registration, filing, and checking that they can be easily performed by every literate person, can quite easily be performed for ordinary "workmen's wages", and that these functions can (and must) be stripped of every shadow of privilege, of every semblance of "official grandeur."

In fact, Sowell observes that:

The early history of the Soviet Union provided the most dramatic empirical refutation of the Marxian assumption that management of economic enterprises is something to be taken for granted as occurring somehow. When economic incentives were drastically reduce or abolished in the heady egalitarian period following the Bolshevik revolution, the Soviet economy ground to a halt. Widespread hunger and a halt to vital services forced Lenin to resort to his "New Economic Policy" that restored the hated capitalist practices. The later nationalizing of all industry under Stalin and his successors did not restore egalitarianism. Quite the contrary. There were highly unequal rewards to management, including today whole systems of special privilege stores to which ordinary Soviet workers have no access. Moreover, the managers of Soviet industry have been disproportionately the descendants of the managerial class of earlier Soviet and czarist times (193).

Then comes the noteworthy conclusion:

Many observers have seen these developments as mere betrayals of Marxist ideals, missing the more fundamental point that a crucial false assumption must be corrected in practice if people are to survive. Its continuing sacredness in theory can only produce hypocrisy. The betrayal may be real, but in Marxian terminology, "no accident." A similar process is occurring in China, to which many Western Marxists transferred their hopes after disillusionment with the Soviet Union. This too is seen as simply a betrayal of Mao by Deng, rather than a nation's painful learning from experience that a key assumption of Marxian economics is false (193-4).

The gross falsehoods of Marx's communism is why the lament commonly heard from so many communist sympathizers -- that "true" communism was never put into practice -- ought to be rejected. In fact, the ideals of communism -- collectivism, dialectical materialism, the evils of capitalism, the idea of labor as the source of all surplus value, the goal of reshaping of man's nature, the principle of "from each according to his ability to each according to his need," and so on -- were substantially put into practice by the communist regimes of the 20th century. The fact that the result was widespread starvation, forced labor camps, unbearable misery, totalitarian police states, and mass death is hardly a reason to think that the more consistent application of these ideas would result in blissful paradise.

Sadly, in spite of the overwhelming evidence provided by the Soviet Union, Red China, Cambodia under Pol Pot, and other countries devastated by communism, far too many Western intellectuals remain in thrall to Marxist ideals. As for the possibility of the honest Marxist professor, if the millions of dead under communist regimes do not constitute reason enough for a harsh look at the ideals of communism, then no facts and no arguments could possibly persuade them to abandon their precious ideology. Facts and reasons themselves have ceased to matter to such a person, however civilized, amiable, or open they may appear.

And this leads me to a final criticism from Thomas Sowell about the ways in which Marxism promotes the rationalizations which help sustain it:

Philosophic materialism, in its social environmental version, also provides ways of dismissing ideas according to their supposed origins--"bourgeois," for example--instead of confronting them in either factual or logical terms. Grandly dismissing opposing views as "outmoded" or consigning them to "the dustbin of history" eliminates the need to think about them or to meet their challenge to one's existing presuppositions. Such practices have spread well beyond Marxists. Much of the intellectual legacy of Marx is an anti-intellectual legacy. It has been said that you cannot refute a sneer. Marxism has taught many--inside and outside its ranks--to sneer at capitalism, at inconvenient facts or contrary interpretations, and thus ultimately to sneer at the intellectual process itself. This has been one of its enduring strengths as a political doctrine, as a means of acquiring and using political power in unbridled ways (208-9).

In other words, the ideology of Marxism is explicitly hostile to intellectual honesty. So it's no wonder that committed Marxists persist -- at least within the protected walls of academia -- to this day.
---

From Marxism to the Market
by Thomas Sowell  (January 2, 2002)

columnistsSowell

How and why had I changed from a young leftist to someone with my present views, which are essentially in favor of free markets and traditional values? In a sense, it was not so much a change in underlying philosophy, as in my vision of how human beings operate.

Back in the days when I was a Marxist, my primary concern was that ordinary people deserved better, and that elites were walking all over them. That is still my primary concern, but the passing decades have taught me that political elites and cultural elites are doing far more damage than the market elites could ever get away with doing.

For one thing, the elites of the marketplace have to compete against one another. If General Motors doesn't make the kind of car you want, you can always turn to Ford, Chrysler, Honda, Toyota, and others. But if the Environmental Protection Agency goes off the deep end, there is no alternative agency doing the same thing that you can turn to.

Even when a particular corporation seems to have a monopoly of its product, as the Aluminum Company of America once did, it must compete with substitute products. If Alcoa had jacked up the price of aluminum to exploit its monopoly position, many things that were made of aluminum would have begun to be made of steel, plastic and numerous other materials. The net result of market forces was that, half a century after it became a monopoly, Alcoa was charging less for aluminum than it did at the beginning. That was not because the people who ran the company were nice. It was because market competition left them no viable alternative.

How you look at the free market depends on how you look at human beings. If everyone were sweetness and light, socialism would be the way to go. Within the traditional family, for example, resources are often lavished on children, who don't earn a dime of their own. It is domestic socialism, and even the most hard-bitten capitalists practice it. Maybe some day we will discover creatures in some other galaxy who can operate a whole society that way. But the history of human beings shows that a nation with millions of people cannot operate like one big family.*

The rhetoric of socialism may be inspiring, but its actual record is dismal. Countries which for centuries exported food have suddenly found themselves forced to import food to stave off starvation, after agriculture was socialized. This has happened all over the world, among people of every race. Anyone who saw the contrast between East Berlin and West Berlin, back in the days when half the city was controlled by the Communists, can have no doubts as to which system produces more economic benefits for ordinary people. Even though the people in both parts of the city were of the same race, culture and history, those living under the Communists were painfully poorer, in addition to having less freedom.

Much the same story could be told in Africa, where Ghana relied on socialistic programs and the Ivory Coast relied more on the marketplace, after both countries became independent back in the 1960s. Ghana started off with all the advantages. Its per capita income was double that of the Ivory Coast. But, after a couple of decades under different economic systems, the bottom 20% of people in the Ivory Coast had higher incomes than 60% of the people in Ghana.

Economic inefficiency is by no means the worst aspect of socialistic government. Trying to reduce economic inequality by increasing political inequality, which is essentially what Marxism is all about, has cost the lives of millions of innocent people under Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and others. Politicians cannot be trusted with a monopoly of power over other people's lives. Thousands of years of history have demonstrated this again and again.

While my desires for a better life for ordinary people have not changed from the days of my youthful Marxism, experience has taught the bitter lesson that the way to get there is the opposite of what I once thought.

*[Editor's Comment: Capitalism Magazine disagrees with the argument that only if people were more noble enough that socialism would be ideal. The truth is the reverse: it is because people can be rational (and must be in rational in order to be productive), that capitalism is the ideal.]

---
Obama's Marxism
Tue Jul 29, 2008

columnistsSowell

Election '08: A plan by Barack Obama to redistribute American wealth on a global level is moving forward in the Senate. It follows Marxist theology -- from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

We are citizens of the world, Sen. Obama told thousands of nonvoting Germans during his recent tour of the Middle East and Europe. And if the Global Poverty Act (S. 2433) he has sponsored becomes law, which is almost certain if he wins in November, we're also going to be taxpayers of the world.

Speaking in Berlin, Obama said: "While the 20th century taught us that we share a common destiny, the 21st has revealed a world more intertwined than at any time in human history."

What the 20th century really showed was a series of totalitarian threats -- from fascism to Nazism to communism -- defeated by the U.S. military. Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy, Tojo's Japan and the Soviet Union offered destinies we did not share.

Our destiny of peace and freedom through strength was not achieved by a transnationalist fantasy of buying the world a Coke and singing "Kumbaya."

Obama's Global Poverty Act offers us a global socialist destiny we do not want, one that challenges America's very sovereignty. The former "post-racial" candidate obviously intends to be a post-national president.

A statement from Obama's office says: "With billions of people living on just dollars a day around the world, global poverty remains one of the greatest challenges and tragedies the international community faces. It must be a priority of American foreign policy to commit to eliminating extreme poverty and ensuring every child has food, shelter and clean drinking water."

These are worthy goals, but note there's no mention of spreading democracy, expanding free trade, promoting entrepreneurial capitalism or ridding the world of despots who rule and ravage countries such as Zimbabwe and Sudan.

Obama would give them all a fish without teaching them how to fish. Pledging to cut global poverty in half on the backs of U.S. taxpayers is a ridiculous and impossible goal.

His legislation refers to the "millennium development goal," a phrase from a declaration adopted by the United Nations Millennium Assembly in 2000 and supported by President Clinton.

It calls for the "eradication of poverty" in part through the "redistribution (of) wealth of land" and "a fair distribution of the earth's resources." In other words: American resources.

It's a mantra of liberals that the U.S. is only a small portion of the world's population yet consumes an unseemly portion of the planet's supposedly finite resources. Never mentioned is the fact that America's population, just 5% of the world's total, also produces a stunning 27% of the world's GDP -- to the enormous benefit of other countries. Nonetheless, their solution is to siphon off the product of our free democracy and distribute it.

We already transfer too much national wealth to the United Nations and its busybody agencies. Obama's bill would force U.S. taxpayers to fork over 0.7% of our gross domestic product every year to fund a global war on poverty, spending well above the $16.3 billion in global poverty aid the U.S. already spends.

Over a 13-year period, from 2002, when the U.N.'s Financing for Development Conference was held, to the target year of 2015, when the U.S is expected to meet its part of the U.N. Millennium goals, we would be spending an additional $65 billion annually for a total of $845 billion.

During a time of economic uncertainty, the plan would cost every American taxpayer around $2,500.

If you're worried about gasoline and heating oil prices now, think what they'll be like when the U.S. is subjected in an Obama administration to global energy consumption and production taxes. Obama's Global Poverty Act is the "international community's" foot in the door.

The U.N. Millennium declaration called for a "currency transfer tax," a "tax on the rental value of land and natural resources," a "royalty on worldwide fossil energy production -- oil, natural gas, coal ... fees for the commercial use of the oceans, fees for the airplane use of the skies, fees for the use of the electromagnetic spectrum, fees on foreign exchange transactions, and a tax on the carbon content of fuels."

Co-sponsors of S. 2433 include Democrats Maria Cantwell of Washington, Dianne Feinstein of California, Richard Durbin of Illinois and Robert Menendez of New Jersey. GOP globalists supporting the bill include Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Richard Lugar of Indiana.

Lugar has worked with Obama to promote more aid to Russia to promote nuclear nonproliferation. Lugar also promotes the Law of the Sea treaty, which turns over the world's oceans to an International Seabed Authority that would charge us to drill offshore and have veto power over the movements and actions of the U.S. Navy.

Obama's agenda sounds like defeated 2004 Democratic candidate John Kerry's "global test" for U.S. foreign policy decisions where "you have to do it in a way that passes the test -- that passes the global test -- where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."

Obama has called on the U.S. to "lead by example" on global warming and probably would submit to a Kyoto-like agreement that would sock Americans with literally trillions of dollars in costs over the next half century for little or no benefit.

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama has said. "That's not leadership. That's not going to happen."

Oh, really? Who's to say we can't load up our SUV and head out in search of bacon double cheeseburgers at the mall? China? India? Bangladesh? The U.N.?

In an Obama White House, American sovereignty will become an endangered species. The Global Poverty Act is the first toe in the water of global socialism.

[Note: it's important to remember that the cost of living in those countries is much lower than here, so a statement that people in other countries are living on just dollars a day is irrelevant unless you also take into account the cost of living in those countries. For example, although it varies somewhat country by country, the government just increased the minimium wage in the Philippines to P267/10 hour day ($.60/hour), which buys an equivalent standard of living that the federal minimum wage of $6.55/hour buys in the U.S. Compared with the Philippines, everything costs 50 times more here. Even though it sounds like Americans are rich by comparison to Filipinos because everyone there compares the Foreign Exchange Rate (1USD = P44 today), just like in the RP very few Americans are because everything costs a higher percentage of our wages than they do in the RP (especially now that the government has raised the taxes so much, and is about to raise them quite a bit more!)

The only fair way to compare the cost of living is how long you would have to work to buy a loaf of bread or a small house in the U.S. versus in the Philippines (and that's if you have no taxes or medical bills). For example, a loaf of bread costs 2 to 3 pesos over there, but here it costs 2-4 dollars (about P176). Another example is that a house like my mother-in-laws' would cost about $150,000 here, and you would have to repay the original $150,000 plus another $150,000 interest over 30 years ($300,000 total = P13,200,000 just for a lower-priced house)! If you used all your wages to pay for a house (and if you didn't have to pay for food, clothes, taxes, etc.), it would take 21 years wages to pay $150,000 for the house and $150,000 in interest here, versus 1 year 4 months (P217 per day) to pay for a small house there (P80,000).

Our taxes are much higher here than in the Philippines (and most other 3rd world countries), too (50% tax currently, taking into account all wage, sales, property, and various other taxes, compared with 20% there). The government takes 50 cents from every dollar you make here with all their different kinds of taxes! If there were no tax, you could buy 72 loaves of bread (P3 each) there with 1 day's wages (P217), but only 14 loaves ($4 each) here with 1 day's wages ($56) at minimum wage.

There's no dispute that there is a lot of poverty in the world, but we have to remember that there is a lot of poverty here in the U.S. also; I, for one, don't make anywhere near the $1.6 Million that Obama and his wife make each year, and I'm struggling to make ends meet and buy food, as are many others I know here in America. If some of the rich people here want to donate money to help poor people, that's a noble intent -- BUT to forcibly take money from poor people in the U.S. at gunpoint (they actually do take you in handcuffs at gunpoint to prison if you don't give them your money) in order to give it to people in other countries is criminal! Also, there are many people in many different countries of many races who are starving, such as in the Philippines. It is racist to be so concerned with giving lots of aid to Africa and not equally to people who belong to other races and countries than his father and mother's country, especially when the huge tax increases that he advocates are going to hurt the poor in America even more to accomplish this Marxist "re-distribution of wealth" at gunpoint by the federal government.

You might be interested to know that, with all of the problems facing citizens of this country, one of the main legacies Obama's left us with as a Senator is the bill he co-sponsored to increase the already exhorbitant amount of money that is already being taken from us (many of whom are already having trouble eating) by $50 Billion more and being sent primarily to Africa -- and he wants to increase our taxes by $845 Billion more if he gets elected as president and throw the money away at more of these UN promoted programs. See article: "Obama's $845 billion U.N. plan forwarded to U.S. Senate floor", subtitled: "'Global Poverty Act' to cost each citizen $2,500 or more" below.

The amount of concern for people of other countries (illegal immigrant social progams, sanctuary cities, protecting criminals and not sharing information with federal authorities, prisoners of war being given equal rights as U.S. citizens, along with lobbyists, special interest groups and anyone else willing to kick back money to our policitians, which has gotten way out of proportion, with concerns of Americans being virtually ignored. It has gotten so bad that even with tens of thousands of faxes, phone calls and emails to legislators about various issues day after day, such as illegal immigrants, the politicians use underhanded schemes to pass whatever they want. Our legislators have even resorted to not announcing what was on the agenda so that they could pass it without Americans (remember -- the people they're supposed to represent?) knowing about it and being able to mount a resistance, or tacked whatever they wanted to pass on the end of a voluminous bill that the other legislators admit they never even bothered to read, opting instead for an "executive summary" of the bill by its sponsor -- a summary that either conveniently omits the addition or glosses it over and avoids mention of any of its detrimental effects.

It's really something when the president of a foreign country can come here and dictate U.S. policy and that OUR (not politicians') hard-earned money be spent on social programs for illegal immigrants, and that we not close the border, and legislators listen to him instead of their constituents! Does anyone even remember what the Boston Tea Party was all about?]
---

Obama’s $50 Billion AIDS Bill
AIM Column  |  By Cliff Kincaid  |  July 13, 2008

More support for the extravagant spending has come from the liberal media, led by the New York Times.

Fighting the liberal media, Senate Democrats, some fellow Republicans and the Bush Administration, three conservative Republican senators are continuing to raise the alarm about the federal government’s out-of-control AIDS spending. Senators David Vitter (La.), Jeff Sessions (Ala.), and Jim DeMint (S.C.) are making a last-ditch attempt to block the irresponsible and budget-busting $50 billion global AIDS bill (S. 2731).

Debate on the bill, which would even permit entry into the U.S. of HIV-positive aliens, begins on Monday afternoon. The legislation doubles funding for the U.N.-affiliated Global Fund, which disregards U.S. policies on abortion and “needle exchange.”

“The [Global] Fund has serious policy problems, drug quality problems, administrative corruption, and [it] operates programs not bound by U.S. laws on abortion, needle exchange, prostitution/trafficking policy and others,” several senators had declared in a letter to Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

Senate offices can be reached by calling 202-224-3121.

Officially known as PEPFAR, the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, this reauthorization bill will increase the dollar amount originally allotted from $15 to $50 billion. The bill “triples PEPFAR’s original budget,” noted one congressional source with alarm.

Senator Barack Obama was one of the original sponsors of the bill, but so was Senator John McCain. In fact, the Global AIDS Alliance issued a June 20 press release headlined, “Presidential Hopefuls Add Support to Landmark Global AIDS Bill,” referring to Obama and McCain.

Paul Zeitz of the Global AIDS Alliance has declared that AIDS is comparable to the threat posed by Hitler’s regime and wants international taxes to fight the “AIDS holocaust.” A variation of such a tax, imposed on international airline travel, has been implemented in 8 countries and proceeds are going to UNITAID, whose partners include the Clinton Foundation and several U.N. agencies. (The eight countries are France, Chile, Côte d’Ivoire, Congo, Republic of Korea, Madagascar, Mauritius, and Niger.)

However, the United Nations over the years has greatly exaggerated the number of those with HIV/AIDS and it is still difficult to get accurate estimates of the problem. 

Some lawmakers have been intimidated by liberal special interest pressure and AIDS activists coming to Washington to deliver funeral wreaths to those standing in the way of the passage of the legislation. Opponents of the bill have been labeled as “Global AIDS Super villains” by the homosexual lobby.

More support for the extravagant spending has come from the liberal media, led by the New York Times, which published a July 7 editorial accusing a “tiny group of Republicans” of obstructing this “worthy bill.” 

It is officially described as “A bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2009 through 2013 to provide assistance to foreign countries to combat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, and for other purposes.”

But since the announced discovery of the AIDS virus, known as HIV, the federal government has already spent $200 billion on HIV/AIDS. No cure or vaccine has been discovered and there are increasing doubts about the effectiveness of anti-AIDS drugs.

Increasingly unpopular because of a deteriorating economy, President Bush seems to think that massively increasing spending on foreign aid, especially AIDS in Africa, will create a “legacy” for him. But conservatives argue that excessive federal spending will only make the economic problem worse.

Nevertheless, congressional sources say that the White House has joined Congressional Democrats and the HIV/AIDS “community” in aggressively pushing the bill and trying to force Vitter, Sessions, and DeMint to back down in their opposition.

Unless senators hear from their constituents in strong opposition, the bill could pass quickly.

Senate sources said that the bill would not prohibit funding for HIV/AIDS programs in countries like China, Russia, and India, which have enough money to pay for those programs themselves. 

“These countries are wealthy enough that they have active programs in both nuclear weapons and space exploration,” a source said. “Russia is awash in petrodollars, while China has hundreds of billions of dollars in its foreign currency reserves, and has an exploding military budget.”

Yet the American taxpayers are being called upon to pay for HIV/AIDS programs in those countries. 

The bill even includes funding for studying the value of male circumcision in AIDS prevention and educating males about the dangers of visiting prostitutes. It diverts funding from AIDS treatment for purposes that include providing substance abuse and treatment services and legal services to AIDS victims. 

Richard Darling of the FAIR Foundation told AIM on Friday that federal funding for most diseases is being cut back while spending on AIDS is continuing to rise. He said HIV/AIDS was receiving a “disproportionate” amount of money. In terms of National Institutes of Health research money budgeted per death, figures show that HIV/AIDS gets $206,906, versus $13,365 for diabetes and only $2,639 for heart and stroke.

In addition to official federal funding, Darling pointed out that Hollywood, TV programs like “American Idol,” rock star Bono, and billionaire Bill Gates have been raising and spending tens of millions of dollars on HIV/AIDS.

Other diseases, he pointed out, don’t benefit from such attention and interest. 

Daniel
July 14  at  10:33 am  |  #1  |  Link
As an American citizen I do not approve of United states citizens footing the bill for peoples diseases in African countries or any other countries for that matter. I am ashamed to discover such elected officials would take on the worlds private illnesses; when millions of senior citizens cannot afford their daily required medications here at home. Sen. OBama and Sen. McCain need to restrain themselves from trying to pay for the world’s responsibilities with the tax-paying citizens hard-earned money without their approval. That they are considering such a bill is nothing but a disgrace, an affront, and a betrayal of our elected official, monetary-trust policies to our unsuspecting Americans. Wake-up senators!!!

UN Anger Over Uganda's Successful Abstinence Program Fueled by Loss of Funds Says Researcher

UNITED NATIONS, October 13, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The United Nations' envoy to Africa, Canadian Stephen Lewis, is highly critical of an abstinence campaign that has downplayed the role of condoms but been hugely successful at reducing HIV transmission in Uganda.  Population Researcher Institute's Joseph A. D'Agostino suggests that the success in combating AIDS in Uganda "isn't good enough for UN officials, whose love affair with condoms knows no bounds, and who are also angry with America for funding her own AIDS initiative in Africa instead of giving the money to them."

Uganda, whose abstinence campaign has been so successful as to be likened to a highly effective vaccine, has reduced HIV transmission rates from 18% to 5-7%. "No other nation in the world has achieved such success," writes D'Agostino. "Most sub-Saharan African nations, following the pro-condoms model, continue to suffer from rising HIV infection rates. Ugandan surveys show a reduction in premarital sexual activity among Ugandan youth and a reduction in extramarital activity among adults," D'Agostino added. "The result: less AIDS."

Lewis is highly critical of the US President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), which has drawn the focus of AIDS prevention away from condoms to the successful abstinence model adopted by Ugandan president Yoweri Museveni and his wife Janet. "There is no doubt in my mind that the condom crisis in Uganda is being driven by PEPFAR," Lewis said. "To impose a dogma-driven policy that is fundamentally flawed is doing damage to Africa."

"This is a bizarre inversion of the truth, and threatens to do grievous harm to the one HIV/AIDS prevention approach that has actually worked," writes D'Agostino. Even Ugandan Health Minister Jim Muhwezi denied there is no "shortage" of condoms. "There seems to be a coordinated smear campaign by those who do not want to use any other alternative simultaneously with condoms against AIDS," he said.

In 2003, the UN itself (United Nations AIDS agency - UNAIDS) admitted that condoms have a disconcerting failure rate. The study revealed that condoms are ineffective in protecting against HIV an estimated 10% of the time. The admission from the UN, which is far lower than some studies which have shown larger than 50% failure rates, is a blow to population control activists which have aggressively and misleadingly marketed condoms in the third world as 100% effective.

"The UN's approach has failed, and its own statistics show it," D'Agostino emphasized. "HIV rates keep rising, to over 30% in some countries.  Two decades of pornographic sex education and massive shipments of condoms have sent millions of young Africans to an early grave."

"Apparently, achieving results isn't good enough for international grandees," D'Agostino concluded. "It's death by condom or nothing.  But we think the Bush Administration will stay the course."

More support for the extravagant spending has come from the liberal media, led by the New York Times.

Fighting the liberal media, Senate Democrats, some fellow Republicans and the Bush Administration, three conservative Republican senators are continuing to raise the alarm about the federal government’s out-of-control AIDS spending. Senators David Vitter (La.), Jeff Sessions (Ala.), and Jim DeMint (S.C.) are making a last-ditch attempt to block the irresponsible and budget-busting $50 billion global AIDS bill (S. 2731).

Debate on the bill, which would even permit entry into the U.S. of HIV-positive aliens, begins on Monday afternoon. The legislation doubles funding for the U.N.-affiliated Global Fund, which disregards U.S. policies on abortion and “needle exchange.”

“The [Global] Fund has serious policy problems, drug quality problems, administrative corruption, and [it] operates programs not bound by U.S. laws on abortion, needle exchange, prostitution/trafficking policy and others,” several senators had declared in a letter to Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

Officially known as PEPFAR, the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, this reauthorization bill will increase the dollar amount originally allotted from $15 to $50 billion. The bill “triples PEPFAR’s original budget,” noted one congressional source with alarm.

Senator Barack Obama was one of the original sponsors of the bill, but so was Senator John McCain. In fact, the Global AIDS Alliance issued a June 20 press release headlined, “Presidential Hopefuls Add Support to Landmark Global AIDS Bill,” referring to Obama and McCain.

Paul Zeitz of the Global AIDS Alliance has declared that AIDS is comparable to the threat posed by Hitler’s regime and wants international taxes to fight the “AIDS holocaust.” A variation of such a tax, imposed on international airline travel, has been implemented in 8 countries and proceeds are going to UNITAID, whose partners include the Clinton Foundation and several U.N. agencies. (The eight countries are France, Chile, Côte d’Ivoire, Congo, Republic of Korea, Madagascar, Mauritius, and Niger.)

However, the United Nations over the years has greatly exaggerated the number of those with HIV/AIDS and it is still difficult to get accurate estimates of the problem.

[Note: instead of urging people to remain faithful and stop promiscuity, like Uganda's successful program -- which costs very little -- this program insists upon encouraging promiscuity and attempting to avoid the consequences with condoms. Also, a growing number of scientists are having increasing doubts about HIV leading to AIDs: On July 20, the New York Times reported from Amsterdam that AIDS is "generally thought to be caused" by HIV, the human immunodeficiency virus. Earlier, the virus had been identified as the undoubted cause. But reports, circulating at the Amsterdam conference, of AIDS-like diseases with no trace of HIV triggered a moment of short-lived doubt. The next reaction was to assume a new, hitherto undetected virus was the culprit. Like Ptolemaic epicycles, hypothetical viruses began to multiply.

Another possibility is that HIV doesn't have anything to do with AIDS. This is what Peter Duesberg of UC Berkeley has been saying for five years: that HIV doesn't attack the immune system, doesn't cause AIDS, and is in fact harmless. A professor of molecular biology, Duesberg is one of the world's leading experts on retroviruses. I called him at his Berkeley lab and asked what he thought of the news from Amsterdam, and the possibility that we may now have one more lethal virus to worry about. "How many different viruses are we going to have that all evolved in the last ten years and all cause the same disease?" Duesberg asked. "Viruses have been around for billions of years and now they're coming out for the latest AIDS conference." (see http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/tbcould.htm and do a Google search for many more articles about these scientists.]

Some lawmakers have been intimidated by wliberal special interest pressure and AIDS activists coming to Washington to deliver funeral wreaths to those standing in the way of the passage of the legislation. Opponents of the bill have been labeled as “Global AIDS Super villains” by the homosexual lobby.

More support for the extravagant spending has come from the liberal media, led by the New York Times, which published a July 7 editorial accusing a “tiny group of Republicans” of obstructing this “worthy bill.” 

It is officially described as “A bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2009 through 2013 to provide assistance to foreign countries to combat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, and for other purposes”, but since the announced discovery of the AIDS virus, known as HIV, the federal government has already spent $200 billion on HIV/AIDS. No cure or vaccine has been discovered and there are increasing doubts about the effectiveness of anti-AIDS drugs.

Increasingly unpopular because of a deteriorating economy, President Bush seems to think that massively increasing spending on foreign aid, especially AIDS in Africa, will create a “legacy” for him, but conservatives argue that excessive federal spending will only make the economic problem worse.

Senate sources said that the bill would not prohibit funding for HIV/AIDS programs in countries like China, Russia, and India, which have enough money to pay for those programs themselves. 

“These countries are wealthy enough that they have active programs in both nuclear weapons and space exploration,” a source said. “Russia is awash in petrodollars, while China has hundreds of billions of dollars in its foreign currency reserves, and has an exploding military budget.”

Yet the American taxpayers are being called upon to pay for HIV/AIDS programs in those countries. 

The bill even includes funding for studying the value of male circumcision in AIDS prevention and educating males about the dangers of visiting prostitutes. It diverts funding from AIDS treatment for purposes that include providing substance abuse and treatment services and legal services to AIDS victims. 

Richard Darling of the FAIR Foundation told AIM on Friday that federal funding for most diseases is being cut back while spending on AIDS is continuing to rise. He said HIV/AIDS was receiving a “disproportionate” amount of money. In terms of National Institutes of Health research money budgeted per death, figures show that HIV/AIDS gets $206,906, versus $13,365 for diabetes and only $2,639 for heart and stroke.

In addition to official federal funding, Darling pointed out that Hollywood, TV programs like “American Idol,” rock star Bono, and billionaire Bill Gates have been raising and spending tens of millions of dollars on HIV/AIDS.

Other diseases, he pointed out, don’t benefit from such attention and interest. 

Daniel
July 14  at  10:33 am  |  #1  |  Link
As an American citizen I do not approve of United states citizens footing the bill for peoples diseases in African countries or any other countries for that matter. I am ashamed to discover such elected officials would take on the worlds private illnesses; when millions of senior citizens cannot afford their daily required medications here at home. Sen. OBama and Sen. McCain need to restrain themselves from trying to pay for the world’s responsibilities with the tax-paying citizens hard-earned money without their approval. That they are considering such a bill is nothing but a disgrace, an affront, and a betrayal of our elected official, monetary-trust policies to our unsuspecting Americans. Wake-up senators!!!

UN Anger Over Uganda's Successful Abstinence Program Fueled by Loss of Funds Says Researcher

UNITED NATIONS, October 13, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The United Nations' envoy to Africa, Canadian Stephen Lewis, is highly critical of an abstinence campaign that has downplayed the role of condoms but been hugely successful at reducing HIV transmission in Uganda.  Population Researcher Institute's Joseph A. D'Agostino suggests that the success in combating AIDS in Uganda "isn't good enough for UN officials, whose love affair with condoms knows no bounds, and who are also angry with America for funding her own AIDS initiative in Africa instead of giving the money to them."

Uganda, whose abstinence campaign has been so successful as to be likened to a highly effective vaccine, has reduced HIV transmission rates from 18% to 5-7%. "No other nation in the world has achieved such success," writes D'Agostino. "Most sub-Saharan African nations, following the pro-condoms model, continue to suffer from rising HIV infection rates. Ugandan surveys show a reduction in premarital sexual activity among Ugandan youth and a reduction in extramarital activity among adults," D'Agostino added. "The result: less AIDS."

Lewis is highly critical of the US President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), which has drawn the focus of AIDS prevention away from condoms to the successful abstinence model adopted by Ugandan president Yoweri Museveni and his wife Janet. "There is no doubt in my mind that the condom crisis in Uganda is being driven by PEPFAR," Lewis said. "To impose a dogma-driven policy that is fundamentally flawed is doing damage to Africa."

"This is a bizarre inversion of the truth, and threatens to do grievous harm to the one HIV/AIDS prevention approach that has actually worked," writes D'Agostino. Even Ugandan Health Minister Jim Muhwezi denied there is no "shortage" of condoms. "There seems to be a coordinated smear campaign by those who do not want to use any other alternative simultaneously with condoms against AIDS," he said.

In 2003, the UN itself (United Nations AIDS agency - UNAIDS) admitted that condoms have a disconcerting failure rate. The study revealed that condoms are ineffective in protecting against HIV an estimated 10% of the time. The admission from the UN, which is far lower than some studies which have shown larger than 50% failure rates, is a blow to population control activists which have aggressively and misleadingly marketed condoms in the third world as 100% effective.

"The UN's approach has failed, and its own statistics show it," D'Agostino emphasized. "HIV rates keep rising, to over 30% in some countries.  Two decades of pornographic sex education and massive shipments of condoms have sent millions of young Africans to an early grave."

"Apparently, achieving results isn't good enough for international grandees," D'Agostino concluded. "It's death by condom or nothing.  But we think the Bush Administration will stay the course."
---

The $50 billion bipartisan AIDS boondoggle
By Michelle Malkin

The Left is cheering Senate reauthorization of the bipartisan global AIDS bill. Supported by President Bush and the Republicans, it triples spending on HIV/AIDS to $48 billion over five years–with $18 billion more in spending than Bush had requested.

Only 16 Senators voted against the massive spending package that comes in the midst of the stimulus-palooza frenzy and the continued dysfunctional state of federal entitlement programs.

Also in the bill: a provision lifting the long-time HIV/AIDS travel ban.

Is this the right time to be heaping the world’s AIDS health care bill on American taxpayers? The White House and the Democrat leadership apparently think so.

Compassion comes at a steep cost. Sen. Jeff Sessions cites Congressional Budget Office estimates that the new AIDS/HIV-infected immigrants entering after the travel ban is lifted could cost the government more than $80 million over a 10-year period. And that’s just the start.

“Most people just don’t want to talk about that.” Nope. Because you’ll risk getting called a bigot or homophobe for daring to bring it up.
 
The outcome, which included the addition of water projects for Indian reservations, demonstrated the complicity of both major political parties in out-of-control spending designed to benefit a powerful special interest group.

However, the $200 billion already spent by U.S. taxpayers on HIV/AIDS here and around the world has not resulted in any cures or a vaccine, and anti-AIDS drugs are coming under increased scrutiny for their ineffectiveness and side-effects.

In addition to spending $50 billion at a time of growing economic difficulties in the U.S., the bill lifts the ban on entry into the U.S. of AIDS-infected aliens, who could end up adding to the costs of the health care system.

Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that providing federal disability, health and nutrition benefits to aliens with HIV/AIDS and their children could cost the government $83 million over a 10-year period.

Among those speaking out against the “reckless” overspending in the bill was Senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky, who declared, “When so many Americans are facing economics problems at home, I have a hard time needlessly tripling the funding for this program.”

Bunning also declared, “We need to ensure that these funds reach the neediest countries and not those that can afford their own space and nuclear programs, such as China and Russia. At a time when China is tripling their defense budget and manipulating their currency, I have a hard time sending billions of dollars over there…”

Yet, Senator DeMint’s amendment to limit the countries in which the AIDS money could be spent was defeated 70-24.

Hans Bader at Openmarket.org shakes his head at warped priorities:

U.S. immigration law is full of contradictions. On the one hand, U.S. immigration laws keep out skilled immigrants who would help our economy, by sharply limiting the number of H-1B visas, and making legal immigration a very difficult and lengthy process. (Economists overwhelmingly support allowing more skilled immigrants to come to the U.S.)

Yet, simultaneously, Congress has just voted to repeal a ban on AIDS-infected people becoming permanent residents of the U.S., even though the Congressional Budget Office says doing so will cost taxpayers many millions of dollars. Health care costs associated with AIDS often exceed $100,000 per person per year. Permanent residents, like citizens, can be eligible for Medicaid, as well as the many taxpayer-subsidized health-care programs aimed specifically at people with AIDS. (We wrote earlier about the counterproductive effects of some taxpayer-funded AIDS programs overseas).

Meanwhile, an amnesty for illegal aliens is likely in the next Congress, which will have a bigger liberal majority than the current one.
Crikey.

***

Update: Sen. Jon Kyl’s statement…

“I supported PEPFAR when it was authorized five years ago, and because of its success, I would have voted to extend the original funding and policy for another five years. I could have even considered doubling the original authorization to $30 billion as the President requested, but the level of funding provided in this bill was far too excessive for me to support.

“The bill also made a number of bad changes to existing PEPFAR policy, like removing the requirement that at least 55 percent of the money actually goes to the treatment of AIDS patients rather than to corrupt governments.

“The dramatic increase in funding will also come at a time when Americans are feeling pain at the gas pump, in the housing market, and at the grocery store. Is this really the time to ask Americans to spend $48 billion more on foreign aid? Congress must be mindful of its obligations to American citizens before it funds multi-billion dollar programs abroad.

“For the United States to have the resources to continue funding its responsibilities to its citizens and to help others around the globe, we need a strong economy that creates wealth. I can think of a lot of other things we could do with part of the $48 billion to improve our economy so that we would be better able to help others in the future.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another Obama Marxist
By Lance Fairchok

Barack Obama has a thing for Marxists. He befriends them, listens to their counsel, and he even hires them to work in his campaign.  And they seem to feel the warmth.  President Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua, who led a revolution there in 1979,  says Barack Obama's presidential bid is a "revolutionary" phenomenon, and Americans are "laying the foundations for a revolutionary change." A captured computer revealed that an unknown person chatted with Marxist FARC guerillas on Obama's behalf (they believed), stating he would be the next President and US policy towards Columbia would change. Frank Marshall Davis, a dear Obama friend and mentor was as a member of the Communist Party USA. Barack Obama just seems to attract Marxists.

If the people he surrounds himself with are any indication of his core beliefs, a higher capital gains tax to punish the rich, even if it diminishes actual tax revenue, may be only the beginning. Obama's Official campaign blogger, Sam Graham-Felsen, a former writer for the leftist Nation magazine and a contributor to the Socialist Viewpoint, is certainly a believer in class warfare.

The capitalist ruling class of the United States exercises a virtual dictatorship not only over American society, but also over the entire world. This capitalist class rule is the basic cause of the poverty, wars and the degradation of the natural environment.

After being expelled from Socialist Action in 1999, we formed Socialist Workers Organization in an attempt to carry on the project of building a nucleus of a revolutionary party true to the historic teachings and program of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky. -- Socialist Viewpoint (info@socialistviewpoint.org)

The product of a Harvard education, Sam is an admirer of anti-American academic Noam Chomsky, a hypocrite and fraud masquerading as a political philosopher. Mr. Chomsky, perhaps admired by Obama as by his official blogger, is fond of visiting dictators and terrorists and giving speeches blaming all the worlds' ills on America. All while accepting money from military contacts at MIT. Chomsky was an ardent supporter of Pol Pot, and to this day denies a holocaust occurred in Cambodia (1.67 million died). He is unrepentant about the horrors his vile ideology encouraged and supports Hamas and Hezbollah with the same willful blindness today.

In an article in the Harvard Crimson, Sam writes of his hero:

For me, hearing Chomsky speak for the first time was a life-changing experience. His ability to take preconceptions and destroy them-to completely remodel one's understanding of reality with cold, hard facts-blew me away. When I left what was then the ARCO Forum last fall, I felt as though I had been through the Matrix and back. Chomsky really has this effect because he bombards you with evidence and logic, not empty rhetoric. It is nearly impossible to hear him or read him-once you've actually checked his facts yourself (he even cites page numbers in public addresses)-and deny what he's saying.

For anyone who has actually endured one of Chomsky's muddled rants or tried to verify the claims in his books, young Sam's praise is comical; and a clear indication he has never actually read one. You find very quickly Chomsky is not overly concerned with "facts," as he fabricates them with abandon. He cites page numbers, to his own books, which recycle themselves with astonishing success. Hardly an example of a towering intellect, his tired canards are sufficient to impress the worshipful Sam Graham-Felsen, and endear himself to the same leftist academics that so easily embraced dictators such Ho Chi Min and Pol Pot, idolize Chavez and Castro and legitimized terrorists like Yasser Arafat. Chomsky is the master of post-modern moral relativism, quick to excuse atrocity with obfuscation.

On the day after 9-11, Chomsky wrote:

"The terrorist attacks were major atrocities. In scale they may not reach the level of many others, for example, Clinton's bombing of the Sudan with no credible pretext, destroying half its pharmaceutical supplies and killing unknown numbers of people."

It may be simple self-aggrandizing hypocrisy that inspires Mr. Chomsky's comments, though I suspect, more likely he mistakes the accolades of twenty year old activists as confirmation of his own genius. He plays what works with the crowd. Here are some other nihilistic gems gleaned from his pedantic and incomprehensible writing:

"If the Nuremberg laws were applied today, then every Post-War American president would have to be hanged."

"Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state."
"Any dictator would admire the uniformity and obedience of the U.S. media."

"The United States is unusual among the industrial democracies in the rigidity of the system of ideological control - "indoctrination," we might say - exercised through the mass media.”

"Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it."

"I have often thought that if a rational Fascist dictatorship were to exist, then it would choose the American system."

Sam Graham-Felsen, hired to run Obama's blog, writes about Noam Chomsky in a Marxist publications that openly calls for revolution against the American government. This is a Presidential candidate's choice to run the on-line portion of his campaign. That speaks volumes of his character and worldview. Contradicting what he says in public, Obama is surrounding himself with poeple who never seem to learn that their absurd ideologies end in misery and ruin. 

Sam is young and has much to learn, so we can forgive his silly hagiographies, the ones about Chomsky and the ones about Obama. His hero worship is eager and emotional and completely without substance, much as Obama's campaign promises are without substance. Obama is a community organizer in the Saul Alinsky mold, and knows where to get people like Sam who have energy and drive. His staff is nothing if not energetic. He even cut his activist teeth in Chicago, the stomping grounds of Alinsky and so many others in the "progressive" community. One wonders why the windy city still has a murder rate higher than Baghdad, after so many years of enlightened activism.

The adults in the Obama campaign expect us to believe that a campaign staff filled with Marxists and radicals does not reflect the candidate. We are supposed to believe that ideologues who distain America and Americans can improve the system that has brought humanity more prosperity and well-being than any nation before it. Speaking out of both sides of their mouths, they tell us we are great, and then insist we must change because we are responsible for all the bad things that happen in the world. That alone should anger the electorate enough to defeat them. The change Obama will bring will not be the change America needs or expects. It will be the change of naive adolescents, which think Noam Chomsky wise.

We continue to have an optimistic outlook about the revolutionary potential of the world working class to rule society in its own name-socialism. We are optimistic that the working class, united across borders, and acting in its own class interests can solve the devastating crises of war, poverty, oppression, and environmental destruction that capitalism is responsible for. - The Socialist Viewpoint
---

Why Exposing Obama Marxism Won’t Work
by Joel Gaines
June 16th, 2008

Of late, there have been a number of articles and blog posts pointing to the evidence of Barak Obama’s Marxist political theory. It is interesting, to say the least, but it is also going to be completely ineffective as a tool to defeat him in November.

I am not debating that Obama is a Marxist. His own words and associations reflect a long-held belief in class struggle, liberation theology, and alienation of those who produce vs. the owners of the production. I am also not trying to define Obama’s Marxism - mostly because we don’t call it Marxism anymore. Marx himself has become irrelevant to the 31 flavors of “Marxism”, which have evolved in various places across the world. That Obama leans toward a “Marxist” view of the world is easy to see for anyone who chooses to remove the rose-tinted lenses.

The issue at hand is more about whether Obama’s Marxism is a relevant criticism of his policy ideas with a goal of using the criticism as a means to expose and defeat him. To my mind, the answer is no.

Most Americans really have no idea what Marxism is. Some may equate it with the former Soviet Union, but Marxism was dead there within a few years of the 1917 revolution. Soviet policies and world view were based upon Communism and Leninism, which is an entirely different animal.

Additionally, the impact of calling someone a Marxist in America is trivial. It will be seen as nothing more than a rhetorical name-calling with the intent of smearing the senator. This isn’t because people can’t believe it is true; it is more because Americans have never been exposed to Marxism as a threat to the nation, as have countries in Europe. It is an undefined experience in the minds of most Americans - the word has no value in America to cause the shock and investigation that it should.

Those who consider themselves Marxist also don’t understand the criticism. Most who define themselves as such are folks who study Marxism - and are more likely to be “classic Marxists”. Obama is certainly not one of those. His political theory is borne in a hybrid - Neo-Marxist tendencies to be certain, but Barak Obama has lived in the cultural Marxist environment of Reverend Wright. Indeed, his Marxist theory - instilled in Barak by his activist mother - was the basis for seeking out Revered Wright’s church as a place to organize blacks for social and economic revolution.

However, many Americans have been blissfully ignorant, and some by choice, at what Barak Obama espouses as his defining world view. The vast majority of these folks are as ignorant about the threat Obama’s Marxist political theory is to what they know today. In the 21st century, Marxism simply doesn't mean anything to most Americans because they lack a knowledge of history and an understanding of what Marxism is, how it has been the foundation of horrific, oppressive governments in the past that we should have learned from and remembered, but unfortunately have already forgotten.

So, calling Barak Obama a Marxist is a great way to define him as applies to his policy beliefs. As a criticism, it just doesn’t work.

Regarding the above, Chris says:
I must say that I understand what you are trying to convey. I’ve often thought the same thing many times. Calling someone a Marxist is almost a badge of honor. Some may even reply ‘Thank you’. They do not understand the history of what they believe in. However I don’t think that it won’t have any effect. There are many people hear who have read The Communist Mannifesto and understand the philosophy and that it doesn’t sound very American. There are also many older people who were alive during the World Wars and the Cold War. They will appreciate the connection. And there are many people here who are migrants from Europe and Asia who know very well what Marxism is and what the real results have been throughout World history. Education is crucial. We can’t miss a beat. Marxism is but one piece of the puzzle. By itself it won’t win an election. But it is needed in order for the other pieces to make sense later on.
---

May 28, 2008
Obama, Black Liberation Theology, and Karl Marx
By Kyle-Anne Shiver

What is the secular basis of Judaism?  Practical need, self-interest.  What is the worldly religion of the Jew?  Huckstering.  What is his worldly God?  Money.
Very well then!  Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Judaism, would be the self-emancipation of our time."
  - Karl Marx; essay, The Jewish Question; 1844

Not having a theology degree, nor even a Ph.D., and being, too, a bit naïve regarding matters of high-brow philosophical currents throughout the ages, I have to admit that when I first read Karl Marx' essay, The Jewish Question, I was actually stunned by its contents. 

First off, my rather cursory education in various philosophies and in Marxism, particularly, did not prepare me for the bitter thrust of old Karl's potent anti-Semitism.  In fact, until reading this particular essay, I would have never, in a million years, connected much of anything whatsoever Marxian with Jew hate.

Who would?

After all, Karl Marx, himself, was a Jew. Hitler and many others blamed the Jews for Communism, thanks to the number of Jews who played prominent roles in the Russian Revolution. I naturally associated twentieth century Anti-Semitism with Adolph Hitler and the Nazis.

Ironically, if Karl Marx had still been alive and residing in Germany or any of the Nazi-occupied countries during WWII, he would have perished along with his brethren, despite his own "self-loathing-Jew" status.

Marx envisioned a society "which would abolish the preconditions for huckstering, and therefore the possibility of huckstering," because this classless society "would make the Jew impossible."

Personally, I find the opinion of some that Marx was a genius, to be downright laughable.  Regarding his opinions on the Jews, one is left to ponderously consider which ones were dumb, and which were dumber.

Evidently Karl Marx was as utterly ignorant of the true tenets of Judaism (Self-sufficiency does not equate to "huckstering.") as he was of the diabolical possibilities inherent in his own words, once they were in the hands of one Adolph Hitler.

This atrocious irony might be merely a historical oddity if old Karl's words were not still bouncing around in the heads of those who wish to lead new revolutions based upon them.  But Marx' words still dominate much of what happens on the world stage today, even in our own republic.

The word emphasis has changed a bit. The industrial proletariat is no longer the focus. But as a newly prominent American politician is wont to remind us:  words do matter.

Yes, of course, words matter, as many leaders of ambitious movements have mightily declared.

...the power which has always started the greatest religious and political avalanches in history rolling has from time to immemorial been the magic of power of the spoken word, and that alone.

Particularly the broad masses of the people can be moved only by the power of speech.   - Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf.

The Oppressed Vs. the Oppressors

Just words. 

But where do they come from, and what do they mean in America today?

I might never have delved into the subject of the oppressed vs. the oppressors if I had not gone to Chicago in January seeking answers about a man who would be president.

When I visited Obama's church, still under the directorship of Jeremiah Wright, I came away with far more questions than answers, and one thing leading to another, have spent the last several months trying to fathom how Marxist political philosophy wound up emblazoned with a cross and a pulpit, and pretending to rely on the Bible for its authority.

It is somewhat difficult to imagine a more contorted blasphemy, with the single possible exception of Hitler himself claiming to be acting by divine decree in the interests of Christianity -- which is precisely what Hitler did do, while hoodwinking the German people into electing him Chancellor.

Hitler sprinkled Mein Kampf with Christian language, most likely to fit with the predominantly Christian German population, and appealed to voters on the strength of his Christian "calling":

"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

As most junior-high Sunday schoolers know, however, a Christian is judged on actions, not words, and Hitler was no Christian.  He was a bamboozler of the lowest imaginable order.

Jeremiah Wright is the tiny tip of Obama's spiritual iceberg.

The phenomenon that raised so many questions for me in January, when I visited Trinity United Church of Christ, was not Jeremiah Wright's sermon, which turned out to be just a call for all good congregants to support Barack Obama for President.  It wasn't the sermon that caught me off guard; I was prepared for that.  I had watched video of Wright, giving five of his fiery sermons. 

The thing that really got me to thinking, reading and searching for answers was the church bookstore.

Having been a practicing Christian for more than 40 years now, and a practicing Catholic for 26 of those years, I have visited perhaps 100 various Christian bookstores, both Protestant and Catholic.  In all of those places, one thing tied together the books for sale:  Christianity.

Not so in Obama's church bookstore.

I spent more than an hour perusing available books, and found as many claiming to represent Muslim thought as those representing Christian thought.  Black Muslim thought, to be specific.

And the books claiming to support Christianity were surprisingly of a more political than religious nature.  The books by James H. Cone, Wright's own mentor, were prominent and numerous.

Now that I have read a number of the books that presumably Wright's congregants (including Barack Obama) have also read, I can only conclude that the thing tying these volumes together is not Christianity, nor any real religion, but the political philosophy of Karl Marx.

"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles."

"Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes."  - Marx and Engels; The Communist Manifesto; 1848

If Marxism can be summed up in only a couple of phrases, now familiar to nearly every modern person, they would be "class struggle" and "oppressed vs. oppressors."

James H. Cone, the unquestioned modern-day mentor of all the black power preachers, claims to have created a new theology, uniting the Muslim black power tenets of Malcolm X and the Christian foundations of Martin Luther King, Jr.

All he has really done, in my opinion, is take original liberation theology from Latin America, developed in the early 1960s by Catholic priests, and painted it black.

Liberation Theology vs. Traditional Christianity

The teaching authorities of the Catholic Church, have for more than 20 years now, been attempting to stamp out these heretical liberation theologies, denouncing them as vehemently antithetical to the Catholic Christian faith, and have been strenuously combating this Marxist counterfeit Christianity on many fronts within the Church herself.

Of course, the Medieval, iron-fisted clamp of the Catholic Church's authority, even within the Church herself, is routinely overstated, and there are renegade priests all over the place (more on another of Obama's spiritual mentors, a liberation theology Catholic priest in Chicago, in Part Two next week). 

Not to mention the fact that the Catholic Church has no authority whatsoever over those claiming to represent protestant interpretations of the Christian faith, such as Cone and Wright.

But it is important to note here that liberation theology, including black liberation theology, has not gone unnoticed by the learned biblical scholars within the Vatican, and liberation theology has been roundly denounced as both heretical and dangerous, not only to the authentic Christian faith, but even more so to the societies which come to embrace it.

Just one nugget from the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Instruction on Certain Aspects of the ‘Theology of Liberation':

"...it would be illusory and dangerous to ignore the intimate bond which radically unites them (liberation theologies), and to accept elements of the Marxist analysis without recognizing its connections with the (Marxist) ideology, or to enter into the practice of the class-struggle and of its Marxist interpretation while failing to see the kind of totalitarian society to which this process slowly leads."
  - (Author:  Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect, now Pope Benedict XVI; written in 1984)

Understanding that black liberation theology is Marxism dressed up to look like Christianity helps explain why there is no conflict between Cone's "Christianity" and Farrakhan's "Nation of Islam."  They are two prophets in the same philosophical (Marxist) pod, merely using different religions as backdrops for their black-power aims.

As Cone himself writes in his 1997 preface to a new edition of his 1969 book, Black Theology and Black Power:

"As in 1969, I still regard Jesus Christ today as the chief focus of my perspective on God but not to the exclusion of other religious perspectives.  God's reality is not bound by one manifestation of the divine in Jesus but can be found wherever people are being empowered to fight for freedom.  Life-giving power for the poor and the oppressed is the primary criterion that we must use to judge the adequacy of our theology, not abstract concepts.  As Malcolm X put it:  ‘I believe in a religion that believes in freedom.  Any time I have to accept a religion that won't let me fight a battle for my people, I say to hell with that religion'."   (p. xii)

And, to drive his Marxist emphasis even further, Cone again quotes Malcolm X:

"The point that I would like to impress upon every Afro-American leader is that there is no kind of action in this country ever going to bear fruit unless that action is tied in with the overall international (class) struggle." (p. xiii)

(Ironically, considering the formal Church teaching regarding liberation theologies, this book of Cone's was published by Orbis, owned and managed by The Catholic Foreign Mission Society of America, a Maryknoll religious entity -- so much for the totalitarianism of the Catholic Church.)

It is this subjugation of genuine Christianity to the supremacy of the Marxist class struggle, which marks the true delineation between traditional Christianity and black liberation theology, as Pope Benedict XVI (writing in 1984 as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger) sums up thusly:

"For the Marxist, the truth is a truth of class:  there is no truth but the truth in the struggle of the revolutionary class."

Which is precisely why Cone and his disciples are able to boldly proclaim that if the Jesus of traditional Christianity is not united with them in the Marxist class struggle, then he is a "white Jesus," and they must "kill him." (Cone; A Black Theology of Liberation; p. 111)

And Cone brings it all the way home with this proclamation of liberation from traditional Christianity itself:

"The appearance of black theology means that the black community is now ready to do something about he white Jesus, so that he cannot get in the way of our revolution."

Move over Jesus and make way for Cone, Wright and Obama.

The revolution is at hand.

And presto-chango, once we've followed Marx, Cone, Wright and Obama down the yellow brick road to revolution, Christianity as we've known it for millennia ceases to exist. 

Obama was raised by his mother, the agnostic anthropologist, to regard religion as "an expression of human culture...not its wellspring, just one of the many ways -- and not necessarily the best way -- that man attempted to control the unknowable and understand the deeper truths about our lives." (Audacity of Hope; p. 204)

However, when Barack Obama met Jeremiah Wright in the mid-eighties, between his years at Columbia and Harvard Law, he found a "faith" perfectly accommodating to his already well-formed worldview. 

From The Audacity of Hope:

"In the history of these (African people's) struggles, I was able to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death; rather, it was an active, palpable agent in the world." (p. 207)

As Obama explains further, it was Wright's (and presumably Cone's, as required of new members at Trinity) peculiar form of Christianity that Obama found palatable:

"It was because of these newfound understandings (at Trinity under Wright) -- that religious commitment did not require me to suspend critical thinking, disengage from the battle for economic and social justice...that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity...and be baptized."

Wright's vision of Christianity was perfectly appetizing to Barack Obama; he didn't need to change a thing.

Liberation Theology and the New Order of Things

James Cone devotes many words in all of his books to instructing his disciples to beware of those resistant to the necessary change in the power structure, warning that, "Those who would cast their lot with the victims must not forget that the existing structures are powerful and complex...Oppressors want people to think that change is impossible." (James H. Cone; Speaking the Truth; p. 49)

Pope Benedict XVI (writing as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger) gives an equally stringent message to Catholics about liberation theology regarding the perversion of the Christian understanding of the "poor":

"In its positive meaning the Church of the poor signifies the preference given to the poor, without exclusion, whatever the form of their poverty, because they are preferred by God...But the theologies of liberation...go on to a disastrous confusion between the poor of the Scripture and the proletariat of Marx.  In this way they pervert the Christian meaning of the poor, and they transform the fight for the rights of the poor into a class fight within the ideological perspective of the class struggle."

According to Pope Benedict's instruction on liberation theology, our understanding of the virtues, faith, hope and charity are subjugated to the new Marxist order:

Faith becomes "fidelity to history." 

We are the ones we've been waiting for, to bring about the final fruition of the class struggle.

Hope becomes "confidence in the future." 

Yes, we can change the world; we don't need God.  Our collective redemption comes when we engage in the Marxist class struggle.

Charity becomes "option for the poor."

All are not created equal.  Special political privilege for the oppressed, socialism, will set us free.

It's the dawn of a new age.

Comments
Kayle-Ann,

I'm not sure that the logical progression you're eloquently presenting is, in fact, logical.

Tying Obama to Wright, Wright to Cone, Cone to Marx and Marx to Hitler requires leaps of logic that would essentially validate the sermon that the Reverend John Hagee gave saying the Holocaust was ordained by God as part and parcel of prophecy.

I think a more even-handed approach to this would be to allow Senator Obama to present what his Christian beliefs entail, rather than making a complex argument that he is a Marxist, which is what I think your article presents.
Posted by: Dan Luther | May 28, 2008 02:07 AM

Obama is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He is at heart a Marxist that if elected will change the U.S. much as Hitler did Germany.
Posted by: D. LeBeau | May 28, 2008 02:13 AM

Regarding the Pope and Hitler: just a month ago, the Pope had warned against all politicians who claim to have all the answers. As a youngster, he lived in a country governed by such a regime.

Yet too many people of all age groups continue to be infatuated with Obama, who is a cult figure. They STILL believe that 'Yes, we can! The Federal Government can solve ALL of our problems! Our families, our clergy, our local authorities and our state governments have no roles to play!'

Duh.

Obama is lying to the gullible. His claim that the US Federal Government is omnipotent is a lie because since its foundation, the USA has been a Union, the members of which all have played some roles. Each American, as well as his/her own family, clergy, local government and state government has a role to play, as does the Fed Government. The Fed Govt. is not a silver bullet, contrary to Obama's claim. It does not have 'all the answers', and neither does any other INDIVIDUAL component of the American society.

What Pope Benedict XVI wants is a very decentralised Union, whereas what Obama wants is a savior Fed Govt. But no Fed Govt. can be a savior - only Jesus can be.
Posted by: Zbigniew Mazurak | May 28, 2008 04:14 AM

Marx was a over rated windbag and those who see him as the messiah are losers plain and simple. In fact, socialism strives for a world without risk for the masses and empowers the flawed who are somehow endowed with a vision for all humanity that never actually transpires. What a boring world they envision. Ever seen or read about the Soviet Union? China during Mao? Cuba today? All for what? Some imaginary utopia where no risk, no failure, no challenges exist? How many generations must these idiots persist if "only the right people are in charge"? Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting the outcome to be different. Socialists are a prime example of insanity. Personally I think Marx was like most liberals today: a bitter unhappy person who was guilty of the Seven Deadly Sins;

Pride is excessive belief in one's own abilities that interferes with the individual's recognition of the grace of God. It has been called the sin from which all others arise. Pride is also known as Vanity.

Envy is the desire for others' traits, status, abilities, or situation.

Gluttony is an inordinate desire to consume more than that which one requires.

Lust is an inordinate craving for the pleasures of the body.

Anger is manifested in the individual who spurns love and opts instead for fury. It is also known as Wrath.

Greed is the desire for material wealth or gain, ignoring the realm of the spiritual. It is also called Avarice or Covetousness.

Sloth is the avoidance of physical or spiritual work.

Could this not describe liberals more perfectly?
Posted by: DaveT | May 28, 2008 04:56 AM

The first major accomplishment of John Paul II was to go to Medelin and inform the worldly Jesuits who swapped rosaries for rifles -that it was over. (liberation theology)
Posted by: Don L | May 28, 2008 06:27 AM

This will be short and for many leftists not so sweet. It will be unequivocal. There are no PhD’s, no laymen, no person on this Earth who understand Karl Marx's Marxism. Marx himself said he was not a Marxist...how messed up is that?
Oh yes, one can easily use all of the definitional phrases and buzzwords, and at one time or another every socialist group does so, but other than to sound intellectual, Marxism to them is a socialism. It is too all who study it. Why?

Karl Marx failed to establish anything close to a coherent philosophy. To one scholar it means one thing, to another something entirely different. It is the noir Gumby of the political philosophies.

One of the most noted Marxist scholars Thomas Sowell stated; "Marx at different times believes different things, he changes his mind, he will contradict himself", a recognition that Marx's work consists largely of works of criticism and diatribes against his enemies. Thomas Sowell rightly points out that "because many of these doctrines have disappeared...later interpreters... have not fully understood the real thrusts and limits of [his] words."

One thing is for sure. When you get a noir a la carte, anti capitalists, limned philosophy it is made use of by every socially misfit faction with a grievance against mankind's freedom -- say like the Democratic Party.
Posted by: Habu | May 28, 2008 07:14 AM

Great article: never have I seen it more eloquently stated that the four big "Axis of Evil" philosophies of the last century - Marxism, Nazi-style fascism, Black Power militancy, and Islam - are intimately intertwined, and collectively must be stamped out in order for the American way of life to survive.
Posted by: Dave D | May 28, 2008 07:25 AM
---

WHY AREN'T WE ALL KEYNESIANS YET?
SYNOPSIS: Celebrates Keyne's pivotal role in saving Capitalism

 This year is the 150th anniversary of Karl Marx's The Communist Manifesto - and the effort to rehabilitate the discredited prophet is in full swing. Never mind the dismal track record of Marxism as a governing ideology; article after article proclaims that today's turbulent world economy is just what the great man predicted. One writer in The New Yorker even proclaimed Marx 'the thinker of the future'.

 I say phooey. Sure, Marx wrote about economic upheavals; so did lots of people. What he never managed to do was offer either a comprehensible explanation of why such upheavals happen, or any suggestions about what to do about them (except abolish capitalism). By my reckoning, Karl Marx made about as much contribution to economics as Zeppo Marx made to comedy. Or as John Maynard Keynes, rather more elegantly, put it, 'Marxian Socialism must always remain a portent to the historians of Opinion - how a doctrine so illogical and so dull can have exercised so powerful and enduring an influence over the minds of men, and through them, the events of history.'

 Harsh words - but Keynes earned the right to say them, for it was Keynes, not Marx, who cracked the code of crisis economics - who explained how recessions and depressions can happen. And as Japan and the rest of Asia have gone into an economic tailspin, it is Keynesianism, not Marxism that offers useful guidance about how they might save themselves.

 I have often wondered why Keynes - unlike, say, Freud - has never become a pop cultural icon. His life surely was interesting enough. Before the First World War he was a member of the free-thinking, Bohemian cluster of artists and writers known as the Bloomsbury Group (Trent Lott would not have approved of his private life). After that war he became famous as the author of The Economic Consequences of the Peace, an eloquent condemnation of the vindictive terms imposed on the defeated Germans; his concern was vindicated by the rise of Adolf Hitler, and the memory of his warnings helped convince a victorious America to aid, not punish, its prostrate enemies after World War II. As that war was drawing to a close, Keynes arrived in New Hampshire as the most important member of the British delegation to the famous Bretton Woods conference - which established an international monetary system that provided the world economy with much-needed stability for a generation.

 But however colorful his resume, only one item on it really matters: his 1936 publication of The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money, which was to depression economics what The Origin of Species was to biology. Before the General Theory, economists could not explain how depressions happen, or what to do about them. (I've tried going through the pre-Keynesian business cycle literature; it's a vast wasteland). After 1936, they could.

True, there was a long stretch - around 25 years - when many economists turned their backs on Keynes. They claimed, with some justice, that he made assumptions that could not be rigorously justified - and purists argued that a theory whose microfoundations are based on observation rather than axioms should be regarded as illegitimate, no matter how well it might work in practice. The devaluation of Keynes was helped by the non-Keynesian nature of the problems facing the world in the 70s and 80s - inflation rather than deflation (although in the early 20s it was none other than Keynes who provided the first coherent explanation of the hyperinflations then consuming many of Europe's currencies), inadequate saving rather than deficient demand. And for a while various anti-Keynesian ideas - ranging from mathematically impeccable academic demonstrations that recessions can't happen (or if they do it's only because people rationally choose to enjoy more leisure), to popular crank doctrines like supply-side economics - seemed to have crowded Keynes off the stage. But just take a look at Japan - an economy that clearly suffers from a lack of demand, not supply, where the clear and present danger is deflation, not inflation - and tell me that Keynesian ideas are no longer relevant.

So why isn't Keynes a household word? Perhaps because we want our gurus to look and sound the part. Our savior is supposed to look like an Old Testament prophet, and rage against the evils of the world; a bowler-hatted member of the Establishment, who wants to rescue the system rather than destroy it, can't make it past the casting department, no matter how unconventional his private life - or his ideas. Keynes also had an off-putting belief that good economics is the product of hard thinking - 'Economics', he once wrote,'is a difficult and technical subject, but nobody will believe it.' Worst of all, instead of presenting depressions as a morality play, with villains and heroes, he portrayed them as a dangerous but treatable disease in an otherwise healthy patient, one that should be curable with a little minor surgery. Indeed, he once expressed the hope that economists might someday be thought of like dentists - that they would be regarded as apolitical professionals brought in to resolve technical problems.

Now I'm not saying that Keynes was right about everything, that we should treat The General Theory as a sort of secular bible - the way that Marxists treat Das Kapital. But the essential truth of Keynes's big idea - that even the most productive economy can fail if consumers and investors spend too little, that the pursuit of sound money and balanced budgets is sometimes (not always!) folly rather than wisdom - is as evident in today's world as it was in the 1930s. And in these dangerous days, we ignore or reject that idea at the world economy's peril.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obama: Healthcare for Illegals
Monday, July 21, 2008
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann

Democrats' single most important domestic proposal — universal health insurance — may blow up in Barack Obama's face when voters are exposed to the deadly details.

Obama has said, proudly and often, "I am going to give health insurance to 47 million Americans who are now without coverage." But are they "Americans?"

That 47 million statistic includes illegal immigrants, who virtually all lack insurance. In fact, about one in four of those lacking insurance is here illegally. And they are, by far, the group most in need of health insurance.

About 15 million of the remaining uninsured are eligible for Medicaid but haven't signed up, mainly because they haven't gotten sick. When they do, they enroll in Medicaid and we pick up the full tab for their health care relatively cheaply. (About 80 percent of each Medicaid dollar goes to nursing-home care for the elderly, only about 20 percent for the medical needs of the poor.)

The rest of the uninsured pool? Virtually all the children are eligible for the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Some aren't enrolled because the parents haven't bothered, but most are eligible. That leaves about 20 million uninsured adults who are US citizens or legal immigrants. There are far better ways to handle their needs than to turn our entire health-care system upside down.

Care for illegals is the biggest unmet medical need in our nation, and Obama's program targets it squarely. But do we really want to give them federally paid coverage equal to what US senators get, as Obama proposes?

Covering illegals adds dramatically to the cost of any program - and would encourage more folks to enter America illicitly.

Obama's plan will likely have a horrific effect on some local health-care systems.

Illegals now get free emergency-room treatment for life-threatening conditions, as any other American who's entered an ER in an area with lots of illegals recently well knows. (Three-quarters of the illegal-immigrant population is concentrated in five states: California, New York, Florida, Texas and Illinois.)

But now they'd be eligible for the entire range of medical services, all free of charge. That would trigger severe rationing: bureaucrats deciding who gets to see an oncologist, who can have an MRI - and even who can have bypass surgery and who'd die for lack of it.

These decisions would be made not on the basis of legal status but on the brutal facts of triage: Treat the 37-year-old illegal with his whole life to live before you spend scarce resources on an overweight, diabetic, 80-year-old citizen with high blood pressure who smokes.

John McCain hasn't raised this issue, perhaps for fear of offending the Latino vote. But polling suggests the case against rationing of health care would be as persuasive to Hispanic-American citizens as it is to the rest of us. Nobody wants to die waiting in line - especially not behind someone who snuck in ahead of us.

McCain needs to hit the Obama plan for treating illegal immigrants to free, federally subsidized health insurance — and hit it hard.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obama's $845 billion U.N. plan forwarded to U.S. Senate floor
'Global Poverty Act' to cost each citizen $2,500 or more
Posted: July 25, 2008
By Bob Unruh
WorldNetDaily

The U.S. Senate soon could debate whether you, your spouse and each of your children – as well as your in-laws, parents, grandparents, neighbors and everyone else in America – each will spend $2,500 or more to reduce poverty around the world.

The plan sponsored by Sen. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, is estimated to cost the U.S. some $845 billion over the coming few years in an effort to raise the standard of living around the globe.

Barack Obama

S.2433 already has been approved in one form by the U.S. House of Representatives and now has been placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar for pending debate.

WND previously reported the proposal demands the president develop "and implement" a policy to "cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015 through aid, trade, debt relief" and other programs.

Cliff Kincaid at Accuracy in Media has published a critique asserting that while the Global Poverty Act sounds nice, the adoption could "result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States" and would make levels of U.S. foreign aid spending "subservient to the dictates of the United Nations."

He said the legislation, if approved, dedicates 0.7 percent of the U.S. gross national product to foreign aid, which over 13 years, he said, would amount to $845 billion "over and above what the U.S. already spends."

The plan passed the House in 2007 "because most members didn't realize what was in it," Kincaid reported. "Congressional sponsors have been careful not to calculate the amount of foreign aid spending that it would require."

A recent statement from Obama's office noted the support offered by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

"With billions of people living on just dollars a day around the world, global poverty remains one of the greatest challenges and tragedies the international community faces," Obama said. "It must be a priority of American foreign policy to commit to eliminating extreme poverty and ensuring every child has food, shelter, and clean drinking water. As we strive to rebuild America's standing in the world, this important bill will demonstrate our promise and commitment to those in the developing world.

"Our commitment to the global economy must extend beyond trade agreements that are more about increasing profits than about helping workers and small farmers everywhere," he continued.

Another critic, however, has been commentator Glenn Beck, whose YouTube video critique can be seen here: (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=70308)

"Not one dime would go to fixing America," the commentary said.

Obama has continued to lobby for such massive expenditures on his campaign stops. During an address as recently as last week, he said, "I'll double our foreign assistance to $50 billion by 2012, and use it to support a stable future in failing states, and sustainable growth in Africa; to halve global poverty and to roll back disease."

Beck and Kincaid pointed out that the plan not only commits the U.S. to the anti-poverty spending proposal, it also adopts for the U.S. the United Nations Millennium Development Goal, which includes a variety of treaties and protocols advocated by the U.N.

Objections have remained strong. Duane Lester, writing at the All American blogger, warned that the U.S. has yet to be able to win its own war on poverty.

"On January 8, 1964, President Lyndon Johnson declared "all-out war on human poverty and unemployment in these United States." This "all-out war" would last through the presidencies of Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, H.W. Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush. We have spent billions of dollars fighting this war, and what have we achieved?"

He continued, "Very little. In 1964, there were 36 million Americans living in poverty, or about 19 percent of the population. In the 40 years between 1964 and 2004: ... poverty never measured less than 11 percent of the population. In 1983, under President Reagan, poverty registered 15.2 percent; in 1993, at the beginning of Bill Clinton's presidency, poverty was measured at 13.7 percent of the population. In 2004, under George W. Bush, a president often accused by the political Left as not caring about the poor, the poverty rate declined to 12.7 percent. Still, some 37 million Americans remain poor."

Despite that performance, "Obama is ready to take the fight global," said Lester.

"In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that declaration commits nations to banning 'small arms and light weapons' and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child," he wrote.

Tom DeWeese at NewsWithViews said the plan "is very telling" about what Obama would do as president.

DeWeese, president of the American Policy Center, warned the over-arching plan includes the ideals of consolidating all international agencies under the U.N., regulation by the U.N. of all corporate environmental issues, license fees charged by the U.N. to use air, water and natural resources, a restructuring that would give hand-picked non-governmental organizations huge influence, authorize a standing U.N. army and require registration of all arms.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are Facts Obsolete?
Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, July 15, 2008

In an election campaign in which not only young liberals, but also some people who are neither young nor liberals, seem absolutely mesmerized by the skilled rhetoric of Barack Obama, facts have receded even further into the background than usual.

As the hypnotic mantra of "change" is repeated endlessly, few people even raise the question of whether what few specifics we hear represent any real change, much less a change for the better.

Raising taxes, increasing government spending and demonizing business? That is straight out of the New Deal of the 1930s.

The New Deal was new then but it is not new now. Moreover, increasing numbers of economists and historians have concluded that New Deal policies are what prolonged the Great Depression.

Putting new restrictions of international trade, in order to save American jobs? That was done by Herbert Hoover, when he signed the Hawley-Smoot tariff when the unemployment rate was 9 percent. The next year the unemployment rate was 16 percent and, before the Great Depression was over, unemployment hit 25 percent.

One of the most naive notions is that politicians are trying to solve the country's problems, just because they say so-- or say so loudly or inspiringly.

Politicians' top priority is to solve their own problem, which is how to get elected and then re-elected. Barack Obama is a politician through and through, even though pretending that he is not is his special strategy to get elected.

Some of his more trusting followers are belatedly discovering that, as he "refines" his position on various issues, now that he has gotten their votes in the Democratic primaries and needs the votes of others in the coming general election.

Perhaps a defining moment in showing Senator Obama's priorities was his declaring, in answer to a question from Charles Gibson, that he was for raising the capital gains tax rate. When Gibson reminded him of the well-documented fact that lower tax rates on capital gains had produced more actual revenue collected from that tax than the higher tax rates had, Obama was unmoved.

The question of how to raise more revenue may be the economic issue but the political issue is whether socking it to "the rich" in the name of "fairness" gains more votes.

Since about half the people in the United States own stocks-- either directly or because their pension funds buy stocks-- socking it to people who earn capital gains is by no means socking it just to "the rich." But, again, that is one of the many facts that don't matter politically.

What matters politically is the image of coming out on the side of "the people" against "the privileged."

If you are a nurse or mechanic who will be depending on your pension to take care of you when you retire-- as Social Security is unlikely to do-- you may not think of yourself as one of the privileged. But unless you connect the dots between capital gains tax rates and your retirement income, you may fall under the spell of the well-honed Obama rhetoric.

Obama is for higher minimum wage rates. Does anyone care what actually happens in countries with higher minimum wage rates? Of course not.

Economists may point to studies done in countries around the world, showing that higher minimum wage rates usually mean higher unemployment rates among lower skilled and less experienced workers.

That's their problem. A politician's problem is how to look like he is for "the poor" and against those who are "exploiting" them. The facts are irrelevant to maintaining that political image.

Nowhere do facts matter less than in foreign policy issues. Nothing is more popular than the notion that you can deal with dangers from other nations by talking with their leaders.

British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain became enormously popular in the 1930s by sitting down and talking with Hitler, and announcing that their agreement had produced "peace in our time"-- just one year before the most catastrophic war in history began.

Senator Obama may gain similar popularity by advocating similar policies today-- and his political popularity is what it's all about. The consequences for the country come later.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

15 Things You Should Know About "The Race"
Michelle Malkin
Wednesday, July 09, 2008

Only in America could critics of a group called "The Race" be labeled racists. Such is the triumph of left-wing identity chauvinists, whose aggressive activists and supine abettors have succeeded in redefining all opposition as "hate."

Both Barack Obama and John McCain will speak this week in San Diego at the annual conference of the National Council of La Raza, the Latino organization whose name is Spanish for, yes, "The Race." Can you imagine Obama and McCain paying homage to a group of white people who called themselves that? No matter. The presidential candidates and the media have legitimized "The Race" as a mainstream ethnic lobbying group and marginalized its critics as intolerant bigots. The unvarnished truth is that the group is a radical ethnic nationalist outfit that abuses your tax dollars and milks PC politics to undermine our sovereignty.

Here are 15 things you should know about "The Race":

15. "The Race" supports driver's licenses for illegal aliens.

14."The Race" demands in-state tuition discounts for illegal alien students that are not available to law-abiding U.S. citizens and law-abiding legal immigrants.

13. "The Race" vehemently opposes cooperative immigration enforcement efforts between local, state and federal authorities.

12. "The Race" opposes a secure fence on the southern border.

11. "The Race" joined the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee in a failed lawsuit attempt to prevent the feds from entering immigration information into a key national crime database -- and to prevent local police officers from accessing the data.

10. "The Race" opposed the state of Oklahoma's tough immigration-enforcement-first laws, which cut off welfare to illegal aliens, put teeth in employer sanctions and strengthened local-federal cooperation and information sharing.

9. "The Race" joined other open-borders, anti-assimilationists and sued to prevent Proposition 227, California's bilingual education reform ballot initiative, from becoming law.

8. "The Race" bitterly protested common-sense voter ID provisions as an "absolute disgrace."

7. "The Race" has consistently opposed post-9/11 national security measures at every turn.

6. Former "Race" president Raul Yzaguirre, Hillary Clinton's Hispanic outreach adviser, said this: "U.S. English is to Hispanics as the Ku Klux Klan is to blacks." He was referring to U.S. English, the nation's oldest, largest citizens' action group dedicated to preserving the unifying role of the English language in the United States. "The Race" also pioneered Orwellian open-borders Newspeak and advised the Mexican government on how to lobby for illegal alien amnesty while avoiding the terms "illegal" and "amnesty."

5. "The Race" gives mainstream cover to a poisonous subset of ideological satellites, led by Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan, or Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan (MEChA). The late GOP Rep. Charlie Norwood rightly characterized the organization as "a radical racist group: one of the most anti-American groups in the country, which has permeated U.S. campuses since the 1960s, and continues its push to carve a racist nation out of the American West."

4. "The Race" is currently leading a smear campaign against staunch immigration enforcement leaders and has called for TV and cable news networks to keep immigration enforcement proponents off the airwaves -- in addition to pushing for Fairness Doctrine policies to shut up their foes. The New York Times reported that current "Race" president Janet Murguia believes "hate speech" should "not be tolerated, even if such censorship were a violation of First Amendment rights."

3. "The Race" sponsors militant ethnic nationalist charter schools subsidized by your public tax dollars (at least $8 million in federal education grants). The schools include Aztlan Academy in Tucson, Ariz., the Mexicayotl Academy in Nogales, Ariz., Academia Cesar Chavez Charter School in St. Paul, Minn., and La Academia Semillas del Pueblo in Los Angeles, whose principal inveighed: "We don't want to drink from a White water fountain, we have our own wells and our natural reservoirs and our way of collecting rain in our aqueducts. We don't need a White water fountain: ultimately the White way, the American way, the neo liberal, capitalist way of life will eventually lead to our own destruction."

2. "The Race" has perfected the art of the PC shakedown at taxpayer expense, pushing relentlessly to lower home loan standards for Hispanic borrowers, reaping millions in federal "mortgage counseling" grants, seeking special multimillion-dollar earmarks and partnering with banks that do business with illegal aliens.

1. "The Race" thrives on ethnic supremacy -- and the elite sheeple's unwillingness to call it what it is. As historian Victor Davis Hanson observes: "[The] organization's very nomenclature 'The National Council of La Raza' is hate speech to the core. Despite all the contortions of the group, Raza (as its Latin cognate suggests) reflects the meaning of 'race' in Spanish, not 'the people' -- and that's precisely why we don't hear of something like 'The National Council of the People,' which would not confer the buzz notion of ethnic, racial and tribal chauvinism."

The fringe is the center. The center is the fringe. Viva La Raza.
---

The ACORN Obama Knows
Michelle Malkin
Wednesday, June 25, 2008

If you don't know what ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) is all about, you better bone up. This left-wing group takes in 40 percent of its revenues from American taxpayers -- you and me -- and has leveraged nearly four decades of government subsidies to fund affiliates that promote the welfare state and undermine capitalism and self-reliance, some of which have been implicated in perpetuating illegal immigration and encouraging voter fraud. A new whistleblower report from the Consumer Rights League claims that Chicago-based ACORN has commingled public tax dollars with political projects.

Who in Washington will fight to ensure that your money isn't being spent on these radical activities?

Don't bother asking Barack Obama. He cut his ideological teeth working with ACORN as a "community organizer" and legal representative. Naturally, ACORN's political action committee has warmly endorsed his presidential candidacy. ACORN head Maude Hurd gushes that Obama is the candidate who "best understands and can affect change on the issues ACORN cares about" -- like ensuring their massive pipeline to your hard-earned money. Let's take a closer look at the ACORN Obama knows.

Last July, ACORN settled the largest case of voter fraud in the history of Washington State. Seven ACORN workers had submitted nearly 2,000 bogus voter registration forms. According to case records, they flipped through phone books for names to use on the forms, including "Leon Spinks," "Frekkie Magoal" and "Fruto Boy Crispila." Three ACORN election hoaxers pleaded guilty in October. A King County prosecutor called ACORN's criminal sabotage "an act of vandalism upon the voter rolls."

The group's vandalism on electoral integrity is systemic. ACORN has been implicated in similar voter fraud schemes in Missouri, Ohio and at least 12 other states. The Wall Street Journal noted: "In Ohio in 2004, a worker for one affiliate was given crack cocaine in exchange for fraudulent registrations that included underage voters, dead voters and pillars of the community named Mary Poppins, Dick Tracy and Jive Turkey. During a congressional hearing in Ohio in the aftermath of the 2004 election, officials from several counties in the state explained ACORN's practice of dumping thousands of registration forms in their lap on the submission deadline, even though the forms had been collected months earlier."

In March, Philadelphia elections officials accused the nonprofit advocacy group of filing fraudulent voter registrations in advance of the April 22nd Pennsylvania primary. The charges have been forwarded to the city district attorney's office.

Under the guise of "consumer advocacy," ACORN has received money from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. HUD funds hundreds, if not thousands, of left-wing "anti-poverty" groups across the country led by ACORN. Last October, HUD announced more than $44 million in new housing counseling grants to over 400 state and local efforts. The White House has increased funding for housing counseling by 150 percent since taking office in 2001, despite the role most of these recipients play as activist satellites of the Democratic Party. The AARP scored nearly $400,000 for training; the National Council of La Raza ("The Race") scooped up more than $1.3 million; the National Urban League raked in nearly $1 million; and the ACORN Housing Corporation received more than $1.6 million.

As the Consumer Rights League points out in its new expose, the ACORN Housing Corporation has worked to obtain mortgages for illegal aliens in partnership with Citibank. It relies on undocumented income, "under the table" money, which may not be reported to the Internal Revenue Service. Moreover, the group's "financial justice" operations attack lenders for "exotic" loans, while recommending 10-year interest-only loans (which deny equity to the buyer) and risky reverse mortgages. Whistleblower documents reveal internal discussions among the group that blur the lines between its tax-exempt housing work and its aggressive electioneering activities. The group appears to shake down corporate interests with relentless PR attacks, and then enters "no lobby" agreements with targeted corporations after receiving payment.

Republicans have largely looked the other way as ACORN has expanded its government-funded empire. But finally, a few conservative voices in Congress have called for investigation of the group's apparent extortion schemes. This week, GOP Reps. Tom Feeney, Jeb Hensarling and Ed Royce called on Democrat Barney Frank, chair of the House Financial Services Committee, to convene a hearing to probe potential illegalities and abuse of taxpayer funds by ACORN's management and minions alike.

Where does the candidate of Hope and Change -- the candidate of Reform and New Politics -- stand on the issue? Barack Obama, ACORN's senator, is for more of the same old, same old subsidizing of far-left politics in the name of fighting for the poor while enriching ideological cronies. It's the Chicago way.
---

Barack Obama: Gaffe Machine
Michelle Malkin
Wednesday, May 21, 2008

All it takes is one gaffe to taint a Republican for life. The political establishment never let Dan Quayle live down his fateful misspelling of "potatoe." The New York Times distorted and misreported the first President Bush's questions about new scanner technology at a grocers' convention to brand him permanently as out of touch.

But what about Barack Obama? The guy's a perpetual gaffe machine. Let us count the ways, large and small, that his tongue has betrayed him throughout the campaign:

-- Last May, he claimed that tornadoes in Kansas killed a whopping 10,000 people: "In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died -- an entire town destroyed." The actual death toll: 12.

-- Earlier this month in Oregon, he redrew the map of the United States: "Over the last 15 months, we've traveled to every corner of the United States. I've now been in 57 states? I think one left to go."

-- Last week, in front of a roaring Sioux Falls, S.D., audience, Obama exulted: "Thank you, Sioux City. ... I said it wrong. I've been in Iowa for too long. I'm sorry."

-- Explaining last week why he was trailing Hillary Clinton in Kentucky, Obama again botched basic geography: "Sen. Clinton, I think, is much better known, coming from a nearby state of Arkansas. So it's not surprising that she would have an advantage in some of those states in the middle." On what map is Arkansas closer to Kentucky than Illinois?

-- Obama has as much trouble with numbers as he has with maps. Last March, on the anniversary of the Bloody Sunday march in Selma, Ala., he claimed his parents united as a direct result of the civil rights movement:

"There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Ala., because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born."

Obama was born in 1961. The Selma march took place in 1965. His spokesman, Bill Burton, later explained that Obama was "speaking metaphorically about the civil rights movement as a whole."

-- Earlier this month in Cape Girardeau, Mo., Obama showed off his knowledge of the war in Afghanistan by homing in on a lack of translators: "We only have a certain number of them, and if they are all in Iraq, then it's harder for us to use them in Afghanistan." The real reason it's "harder for us to use them" in Afghanistan: Iraqis speak Arabic or Kurdish. The Afghanis speak Pashto, Farsi or other non-Arabic languages.

-- Over the weekend in Oregon, Obama pleaded ignorance of the decades-old, multi-billion-dollar massive Hanford nuclear waste cleanup:

"Here's something that you will rarely hear from a politician, and that is that I'm not familiar with the Hanford, uuuuhh, site, so I don't know exactly what's going on there. (Applause.) Now, having said that, I promise you I'll learn about it by the time I leave here on the ride back to the airport."

I assume on that ride, a staffer reminded him that he's voted on at least one defense authorization bill that addressed the "costs, schedules, and technical issues" dealing with the nation's most contaminated nuclear waste site.

-- Last March, the Chicago Tribune reported this little-noticed nugget about a fake autobiographical detail in Obama's "Dreams from My Father":

"Then, there's the copy of Life magazine that Obama presents as his racial awakening at age 9. In it, he wrote, was an article and two accompanying photographs of an African-American man physically and mentally scarred by his efforts to lighten his skin. In fact, the Life article and the photographs don't exist, say the magazine's own historians."

-- And in perhaps the most seriously troubling set of gaffes of them all, Obama told a Portland crowd over the weekend that Iran doesn't "pose a serious threat to us" -- cluelessly arguing that "tiny countries" with small defense budgets can't do us harm -- and then promptly flip-flopped the next day, claiming, "I've made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave."

Barack Obama -- promoted by the Left and the media as an all-knowing, articulate, transcendent Messiah -- is a walking, talking gaffe machine. How many more passes does he get? How many more can we afford?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conservatives for Obama?
Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, July 08, 2008

A number of friends of mine have commented on an odd phenomenon that they have observed-- conservative Republicans they know who are saying that they are going to vote for Barack Obama. It seemed at first to be an isolated fluke, perhaps signifying only that my friends know some strange conservatives. But apparently columnist Robert Novak has encountered the same phenomenon and has coined the term "Obamacons" to describe the conservatives for Senator Obama.

Now the San Francisco Chronicle has run a feature article, titled "Some Influential Conservatives Spurn GOP and Endorse Obama." In it they quote various conservatives on why they are ready to take a chance on Barack Obama, rather than on John McCain.

What is going on?

Partly what is going on is that, in recent years, the Congressional Republicans in general-- and Senator John McCain in particular-- have so alienated so many conservatives that some of these conservatives are like a drowning man grasping at a straw.

The straw in this case is Obama's recent "refining" of his position on a number of issues, as he edges toward the center, in order to try to pick up more votes in November's general election.

Understandable as the reactions of some conservatives may be, a straw is a very unreliable flotation device.

If all that was involved was Democrats versus Republicans, the Republicans would deserve the condemnation they are getting, after their years of wild spending and their multiple betrayals of the principles and the people who got them elected. Amnesty for illegal aliens was perhaps the worst betrayal.

But, while the media may treat the elections as being about Democrats and Republicans-- the "horse race" approach-- elections were not set up by the Constitution of the United States in order to enable party politicians to get jobs.

Nor were elections set up in order to enable voters to vent their emotions or indulge their fantasies.

Voting is a right but it is also a duty-- a duty not just to show up on election day, but a duty to give serious thought to the alternatives on the table and what those alternatives mean for the future of the nation.

What is becoming ever more painfully apparent is that too many people this year-- whether conservative, liberals or whatever-- are all too willing to judge Barack Obama on the basis of his election-year rhetoric, rather than on the record of what he has advocated and done during the past two decades.

Many are for him for no more serious reasons than his mouth and his complexion. The man has become a Rorschach test for the feelings and hopes, not only of those on the left, but also for some on the right as well.

Here is a man who has consistently aided and abetted people who have openly expressed their contempt for this country, both in words and in such deeds as planting bombs to advance their left-wing agenda.

Despite the spin that judging Obama by what was said or done by such people would be "guilt by association," he has not just associated with such people. He has in some cases donated some serious money of his own and even more of the taxpayers' money, as both a state senator in Illinois and a member of the Senate of the United States.

Barack Obama is on record as favoring the kinds of justices who make policy, not just carry out laws. No matter how he may "refine" his position on this issue, he voted against the confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts, who was easily confirmed by more than three-quarters of the Senators.

Like people on the far left for literally centuries, Barack Obama plays down the dangers to the nation, and calls talk about such dangers "the politics of fear."

Back in the 18th century, Helvetius said, "When I speak I put on a mask. When I act, I am forced to take it off." Too many voters still have not learned that lesson. They need to look at the track record of Obama's actions.

Back in the days of "The Lone Ranger" program, someone would ask, "Who is that masked man?" People need to start asking that question about Barack Obama.
---

An Internet Fraud
Thomas Sowell
Wednesday, July 09, 2008

Over the years, many statements have been falsely attributed to me, but this is the first year in which a whole column has been made up and circulated in a chain letter on the Internet, claiming that I wrote it.

Letters, phone calls and e-mails from readers around the country have asked me if I wrote a column saying that Barack Obama is not an American citizen. The answer is "No."

Many of my readers have been savvy enough to tell that the style of the phony column is not mine, but checked with me just to be sure.

What is puzzling about all this is that some people would take seriously a chain letter on the Internet saying what some columnist-- any columnist-- is supposed to have said, and would pass that on without knowing whether it was true or false.

Nothing is easier than to check someone's column as it appears officially on the Internet. Among the places where my columns can be checked on the Internet are the archives on my own website: www.tsowell.com.

What is also puzzling is why some people find it necessary to make up false statements and attribute those statements to someone else.

If they think that the person they oppose is wrong-- and why else would they oppose him?-- then why is it necessary to make up something, when they can just show that what he actually said is wrong?

Making something up is a confession of both intellectual and moral bankruptcy.
---

Does Patriotism Matter?
Thomas Sowell
Wednesday, July 02, 2008

The Fourth of July is a patriotic holiday but patriotism has long been viewed with suspicion or disdain by many of the intelligentsia. As far back as 1793, prominent British writer William Godwin called patriotism "high-sounding nonsense."

Internationalism has long been a competitor with patriotism, especially among the intelligentsia. H.G. Wells advocated replacing the idea of duty to one's country with "the idea of cosmopolitan duty."

Perhaps nowhere was patriotism so downplayed or deplored than among intellectuals in the Western democracies in the two decades after the horrors of the First World War, fought under various nations' banners of patriotism.

In France, after the First World War, the teachers' unions launched a systematic purge of textbooks, in order to promote internationalism and pacifism.

Books that depicted the courage and self-sacrifice of soldiers who had defended France against the German invaders were called "bellicose" books to be banished from the schools.

Textbook publishers caved in to the power of the teachers' unions, rather than lose a large market for their books. History books were sharply revised to conform to internationalism and pacifism.

The once epic story of the French soldiers' heroic defense against the German invaders at Verdun, despite the massive casualties suffered by the French, was now transformed into a story of horrible suffering by all soldiers at Verdun-- French and German alike.

In short, soldiers once depicted as national heroes were now depicted as victims-- and just like victims in other nations' armies.

Children were bombarded with stories on the horrors of war. In some schools, children whose fathers had been killed during the war were asked to speak to the class and many of these children-- as well as some of their classmates and teachers-- broke down in tears.

In Britain, Winston Churchill warned that a country "cannot avoid war by dilating upon its horrors." In France, Marshal Philippe Petain, the victor at Verdun, warned in 1934 that teachers were trying to "raise our sons in ignorance of or in contempt of the fatherland."

But they were voices drowned out by the pacifist and internationalist rhetoric of the 1920s and 1930s.

Did it matter? Does patriotism matter?

France, where pacifism and internationalism were strongest, became a classic example of how much it can matter.

During the First World War, France fought on against the German invaders for four long years, despite having more of its soldiers killed than all the American soldiers killed in all the wars in the history of the United States, put together.

But during the Second World War, France collapsed after just six weeks of fighting and surrendered to Nazi Germany. At the bitter moment of defeat the head of the French teachers' union was told, "You are partially responsible for the defeat."

Charles de Gaulle, Francois Mauriac, and other Frenchmen blamed a lack of national will or general moral decay, for the sudden and humiliating collapse of France in 1940.

At the outset of the invasion, both German and French generals assessed French military forces as more likely to gain victory, and virtually no one expected France to collapse like a house of cards -- except Adolf Hitler, who had studied French society instead of French military forces.

Did patriotism matter? It mattered more than superior French tanks and planes.

Most Americans today are unaware of how much our schools have followed in the footsteps of the French schools of the 1920s and 1930s, or how much our intellectuals have become citizens of the world instead of American patriots.

Our media are busy verbally transforming American combat troops from heroes into victims, just as the French intelligentsia did-- with the added twist of calling this "supporting the troops."

Will that matter? Time will tell.
---

High-Stakes Courts
Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, July 01, 2008

Recent landmark court decisions are reminders that elections are not just about putting candidates in office for a few years.

The judges that elected officials put on the bench can remake the legal landscape, change fundamental social policies and even affect the way wars are fought, long after those who appointed them have served their terms and passed from the scene.

The Supreme Court recently created a new "right" out of thin air for captured enemy soldiers and terrorists-- the right to seek release in the federal courts, something that neither the Constitution nor the Geneva Convention provided.

The High Court has also struck down gun control laws as violations of the Second Amendment. Whatever the legal merits or the policy merits of that decision, it is a major change, created by judges.

The point here is that federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, wield enormous-- and growing-- power. What that means is that when we vote for the candidates who will nominate and confirm judges, we are making decisions not only for ourselves but for generations yet unborn.

Recent momentous decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court have been decided by 5 to 4 votes, including the votes of justices appointed by presidents who are no longer living-- Justice John Paul Stevens, appointed by President Ford, and Justice Anthony Kennedy, appointed by President Reagan.

Whoever is elected to the White House this November is expected to appoint two or three new members of the Supreme Court-- justices who will be making major decisions affecting the future of American society, long after that president is gone.

Your children will be living during the lifetime tenure of those justices, and your grandchildren will be living in a world shaped by the precedents that those justices set.

In a year when dissatisfaction has been expressed by both Democrats and Republicans with the presidential candidates chosen by their own parties, it is worth keeping in mind the high stakes involved in judicial appointments-- and therefore in presidential elections.

This is especially important to be kept in mind by voters who are thinking of venting their frustrations by voting for some third-party candidate that they know has no chance of being elected.

There will be a president chosen this November, and he will appoint Supreme Court justices during his term, regardless of whether you stay home or go to the polls.

His choices for the High Court will have a major impact on history, whether you vote after a sober consideration of many facts or vote on the basis of the candidate's rhetoric, style or demographics.

Even more important than the particular issues that courts will decide is the more fundamental issue of what a judge's role is in our system of Constitutional government.

In the gun control decision, for example, there were justices who read the history and meaning of the Second Amendment differently. What was most dangerous, however, was Justice Stephen Breyer's opinion that it was up to judges to weigh and "balance" the pros and cons of gun control laws.

If we have Constitutional rights only when judges like the end results, we may as well not have a Constitution.

Is the right to free speech to be put aside, and a journalist put behind bars, whenever a judge thinks that journalist went "too far" in expressing an opinion about some politician or bureaucrat?

Is someone to be tried over again for the same crime, even after having been acquitted, if judges regard the Constitutional ban on double jeopardy as just a suggestion to be weighed and "balanced?"

We have already seen what happens when a 5 to 4 majority decides that politicians can seize your home and give it to somebody else, if judges don't think your property rights "balance" whatever politicians choose to call "the public interest."

When deciding which candidate you want in the White House for the next 4 years, it is worth considering what kind of judges you want on the federal courts for the next generation.
---

An Old Newness
by Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Many years ago, a great hitter named Paul Waner was nearing the end of his long career. He entered a ballgame with 2,999 hits -- one hit away from the landmark total of 3,000, which so many hitters want to reach, but which relatively few actually do reach.

Waner hit a ball that the fielder did not handle cleanly but the official scorer called it a hit, making it Waner's 3,000th. Paul Waner then sent word to the official scorer that he did not want that questionable hit to be the one that put him over the top.

The official scorer reversed himself and called it an error. Later Paul Waner got a clean hit for number 3,000.

What reminded me of this is the great fervor that many seem to feel over the prospect of the first black President of the United States.

No doubt it is only a matter of time before there is a black president, just as it was only a matter of time before Paul Waner got his 3,000th hit. The issue is whether we want to reach that landmark so badly that we are willing to overlook how questionably that landmark is reached.

Paul Waner had too much pride to accept a scratch hit. Choosing a President of the United States is a lot more momentous than a baseball record. We the voters need to have far more concern about who we put in that office that holds the destiny of a nation and of generations yet unborn.

There is no reason why someone as arrogant, foolishly clever and ultimately dangerous as Barack Obama should become president -- especially not at a time when the threat of international terrorists with nuclear weapons looms over 300 million Americans.

Many people seem to regard elections as occasions for venting emotions, like cheering for your favorite team or choosing a Homecoming Queen.

The three leading candidates for their party's nomination are being discussed in terms of their demographics -- race, sex and age -- as if that is what the job is about.

One of the painful aspects of studying great catastrophes of the past is discovering how many times people were preoccupied with trivialities when they were teetering on the edge of doom. The demographics of the presidency are far less important than the momentous weight of responsibility that office carries.

Just the power to nominate federal judges to trial courts and appellate courts across the country, including the Supreme Court, can have an enormous impact for decades to come. There is no point feeling outraged by things done by federal judges, if you vote on the basis of emotion for those who appoint them.

Barack Obama has already indicated that he wants judges who make social policy instead of just applying the law. He has already tried to stop young violent criminals from being tried as adults.

Although Senator Obama has presented himself as the candidate of new things -- using the mantra of "change" endlessly -- the cold fact is that virtually everything has says about domestic policy is straight out of the 1960s and virtually everything he says about foreign policy is straight out of the 1930s.

Protecting criminals, attacking business, increasing government spending, promoting a sense of envy and grievance, raising taxes on people who are productive and subsidizing those who are not -- all this is a re-run of the 1960s.

We paid a terrible price for such 1960s notions in the years that followed, in the form of soaring crime rates, double-digit inflation and double-digit unemployment. During the 1960s, ghettoes across the countries were ravaged by riots from which many have not fully recovered to this day.

The violence and destruction were concentrated not where there was the greatest poverty or injustice but where there were the most liberal politicians, promoting grievances and hamstringing the police.

Internationally, the approach that Senator Obama proposes -- including the media magic of meetings between heads of state -- was tried during the 1930s. That approach, in the name of peace, is what led to the most catastrophic war in human history.

Everything seems new to those too young to remember the old and too ignorant of history to have heard about it.
---

Cocky Ignorance
Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, June 10, 2008

Now that Senator Barack Obama has become the Democrats' nominee for President of the United States, to the cheers of the media at home and abroad, he has written a letter to the Secretary of Defense, in a tone as if he is already President, addressing one of his subordinates.

The letter ends: "I look forward to your swift response."

With wars going on in both Iraq and Afghanistan, a Secretary of Defense might have some other things to look after, before making a "swift response" to a political candidate.

Because of the widely publicized statistic that suicide rates among American troops have gone up, Senator Obama says he wants the Secretary of Defense to tell him, swiftly:

"What changes will you make to provide our soldiers in theater with real access to mental health care?"

"What training has the Pentagon provided our medical professionals in theater to recognize who might be at risk of committing suicide?"

"What assistance are you providing families here at home to recognize the risk factors for suicide, so that they may help our service members get the assistance they need?"

"What programs has the Pentagon implemented to help reduce the stigma attached to mental health concerns so that service members are more likely to seek appropriate care?"

All this sounds very plausible, as so many other things that Senator Obama says sound plausible. But, like so many of those other things, it will not stand up under scrutiny.

What has been widely publicized in the media is that suicides among American troops have gone up. What has not been widely publicized is that this higher suicide rate is still not as high as the suicide rate among demographically comparable civilians.

No one needs to be reminded that suicide is a serious matter, whether among soldiers or civilians. But the media have managed to create the impression that it is military service overseas which is the cause of suicides among American troops, when civilians of the same ages and other demographic characteristics are committing suicide at an even higher rate at home.

Moreover, this is not the first time that military service overseas has been portrayed in the media as the cause of problems that are worse in the civilian population at home.

The New York Times led the way in making homicides committed by returning military veterans a front page story, blaming this on "combat trauma and the stress of deployment." Yet the New York Post showed that the homicide rate among returning veterans is a fraction of the homicide rate among demographically comparable civilians.

In other words, if military veterans are not completely immune to the problems found among civilians at home, then the veterans' problems are to be blamed on military service-- at least by the mainstream media.

Does Senator Obama know how the rate of suicides or homicides among military veterans compares to the rate of suicides or homicides among their civilian counterparts? Do the facts matter to him, as compared to an opportunity to score political points?

Perhaps even more important, do the media even care whether Senator Obama knows what he is talking about? Or is the symbolism of "the first black President" paramount, even if that means a President with cocky ignorance at a time of national danger?

The media have been crucial to Barack Obama's whole candidacy. His only achievements of national significance in his entire career have been media achievements and rhetorical achievements.

Perhaps his greatest achievement has been running as a candidate with an image wholly incompatible with what he has actually been doing for decades. This man who is now supposedly going to "unite" us has for years worked hand in glove, and contributed both his own money and the taxpayers' money, to people who have sought to divide us in the most crude demagogic ways.

With all his expressed concern about the war in Iraq, he has not set foot in Iraq for more than two years-- including the very years when progress has been made against the terrorists there.

You don't need to know the facts when you have cocky ignorance and the media behind you.

Thomas Sowell was born in North Carolina and grew up in Harlem. As with many others in his neighborhood, he left home early and did not finish high school. The next few years were difficult ones, but eventually he joined the Marine Corps and became a photographer in the Korean War. After leaving the service, Sowell entered Harvard University, worked a part-time job as a photographer and studied the science that would become his passion and profession: economics.

After graduating magna cum laude from Harvard University (1958), he went on to receive his master's in economics from Columbia University (1959) and a doctorate in economics from the University of Chicago (1968).

In the early '60s, Sowell held jobs as an economist with the Department of Labor and AT&T. But his real interest was in teaching and scholarship. In 1965, at Cornell University, he began the first of many professorships. His other teaching assignments include Rutgers University, Amherst University, Brandeis University and the University of California at Los Angeles, where he taught in the early '70s and also from 1984 to 1989.

Sowell has published a large volume of writing. His dozen books, as well as numerous articles and essays, cover a wide range of topics, from classic economic theory to judicial activism, from civil rights to choosing the right college. Moreover, much of his writing is considered ground-breaking -- work that will outlive the great majority of scholarship done today.

Though Sowell had been a regular contributor to newspapers in the late '70s and early '80s, he did not begin his career as a newspaper columnist until 1984. George F. Will's writing, says Sowell, proved to him that someone could say something of substance in so short a space (750 words). And besides, writing for the general public enables him to address the heart of issues without the smoke and mirrors that so often accompany academic writing.

In 1990, he won the prestigious Francis Boyer Award, presented by The American Enterprise Institute.

Currently Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute in Stanford, Calif.
---

Obama and McCain
Thomas Sowell
Thursday, June 05, 2008

Now that the two parties have finally selected their presidential candidates, it is time for a sober-- if not grim-- assessment of where we are.

Not since 1972 have we been presented with two such painfully inadequate candidates. When election day came that year, I could not bring myself to vote for either George McGovern or Richard Nixon. I stayed home.

This year, none of us has that luxury. While all sorts of gushing is going on in the media, and posturing is going on in politics, the biggest national sponsor of terrorism in the world-- Iran-- is moving step by step toward building a nuclear bomb.

The point when they get that bomb will be the point of no return. Iran's nuclear bomb will be the terrorists' nuclear bomb-- and they can make 9/11 look like child's play.

All the options that are on the table right now will be swept off the table forever. Our choices will be to give in to whatever the terrorists demand-- however outrageous those demands might be-- or to risk seeing American cities start disappearing in radioactive mushroom clouds.

All the things we are preoccupied with today, from the price of gasoline to health care to global warming, will suddenly no longer matter.

Just as the Nazis did not find it enough to simply kill people in their concentration camps, but had to humiliate and dehumanize them first, so we can expect terrorists with nuclear weapons to both humiliate us and force us to humiliate ourselves, before they finally start killing us.

They have already telegraphed their punches with their sadistic beheadings of innocent civilians, and with the popularity of videotapes of those beheadings in the Middle East.

They have already telegraphed their intention to dictate to us with such things as Osama bin Laden's threats to target those places in America that did not vote the way he prescribed in the 2004 elections. He could not back up those threats then but he may be able to in a very few years.

The terrorists have given us as clear a picture of what they are all about as Adolf Hitler and the Nazis did during the 1930s-- and our "leaders" and intelligentsia have ignored the warning signs as resolutely as the "leaders" and intelligentsia of the 1930s downplayed the dangers of Hitler.

We are much like people drifting down the Niagara River, oblivious to the waterfalls up ahead. Once we go over those falls, we cannot come back up again.

What does this have to do with today's presidential candidates? It has everything to do with them.

One of these candidates will determine what we are going to do to stop Iran from going nuclear-- or whether we are going to do anything other than talk, as Western leaders talked in the 1930s.

There is one big difference between now and the 1930s. Although the West's lack of military preparedness and its political irresolution led to three solid years of devastating losses to Nazi Germany and imperial Japan, nevertheless when all the West's industrial and military forces were finally mobilized, the democracies were able to turn the tide and win decisively.

But you cannot lose a nuclear war for three years and then come back. You cannot even sustain the will to resist for three years when you are first broken down morally by threats and then devastated by nuclear bombs.

Our one window of opportunity to prevent this will occur within the term of whoever becomes President of the United States next January.

At a time like this, we do not have the luxury of waiting for our ideal candidate or of indulging our emotions by voting for some third party candidate to show our displeasure-- at the cost of putting someone in the White House who is not up to the job.

Senator John McCain has been criticized in this column many times. But, when all is said and done, Senator McCain has not spent decades aiding and abetting people who hate America.

On the contrary, he has paid a huge price for resisting our enemies, even when they held him prisoner and tortured him. The choice between him and Barack Obama should be a no-brainer.
---

Irrelevant Apologies
Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, June 03, 2008

It is amazing how seriously the media are taking Senator Barack Obama's latest statement about the latest racist rant from the pulpit of the church he has attended for 20 years. But neither that statement nor the apology for his rant by Father Michael Pfleger really matters, one way or the other. Nor does Senator Obama's belated resignation from that church.

For any politician, what matters is not his election year rhetoric, or an election year resignation from a church, but the track record of that politician in the years before the election.

Yet so many people are so fascinated by Barack Obama's rhetorical skills that they don't care about his voting record in the U.S. Senate, in the Illinois state senate, the causes that he has chosen to promote over the years, or the candidate's personal character and values, as revealed by his actions and associations.

Despite clever spin from Obama's supporters about avoiding "guilt by association," much more is involved than casual association with people like Jeremiah Wright and Father Pfleger.

In addition to giving $20,000 of his own money to Jeremiah Wright, as a state senator Obama directed $225,000 of the Illinois taxpayers' money for programs run by Father Pfleger. In the U.S. Senate, Obama earmarked $100,000 in federal tax money for Father Pfleger's work. Giving someone more than 300 grand is not just some tenuous, coincidental association.

Are Barack Obama's views shown by what he says during an election year or by what he has been doing for decades before?

The complete contrast between Obama's election year image as a healer of divisions and his whole career of promoting far-left grievance politics, in association with America-haters like Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers, are brushed aside by his supporters who talk about getting back to "the real issues."

There is nothing more real than a man's character and values. The track record of what he has actually done is far more real than anything he says, however elegantly he says it.

There is no office where the character and values of the person in that office matter more than the office of President of the United States. He holds the destiny of 300 million Americans in his hands and the fate of generations yet unborn.

That was never more true than today, with Iran moving ever closer to a nuclear bomb, while the United Nations wrings its hands and Congress fritters away its time on everything from steroids in sports to earmarks for pet projects back home.

Does anyone seriously consider what it would mean for Iran to have nuclear weapons? They are already supplying terrorists with the means of killing people in other countries, including killing American troops in Iraq.

Senator Obama has been downplaying the Iran threat, saying that they are just "a small country," not like the Soviet Union. The people who flew planes into the World Trade Center were an even smaller group than the Iranian government.

Half a dozen terrorists like that with nuclear weapons would be a bigger danger than the Soviet Union ever was, because the Soviet leaders were not suicide bombers. They could be deterred by the threat of what we would do to Moscow if they attacked New York.

You cannot deter suicidal fanatics. They are not going to stop unless they get stopped. Rhetoric is not going to do it.

Not only Senator Obama, but too many other Americans, seem to have no concept of the seething hatred that can lead people to destroy their own lives in order to lash out at others.

But terrorists have been doing this repeatedly, not only in Iraq and in Israel, but in other countries around the world-- including the United States on 9/11.

Have we already forgotten how the Palestinians were cheering in the streets over the news of the attack on the World Trade Center? How videotapes of sadistic beheadings of innocent people by terrorists have found an eager audience in the Middle East?

Are we going to leave our children hostages to hate-filled sadists with nuclear weapons? Are we to rely on Barack Obama's rhetoric to protect them?

Senator Obama's foreign policy seems to be somewhere between Rodney King's "Can't we just get along?" and Alfred E. Neuman's "What, me worry?"
---

Random Thoughts
Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, May 20, 2008

Random thoughts on the passing scene:

Seeing the Pope driven around in a bullet-proof vehicle reminds me of how much times have changed over the years. I can remember when President Franklin D. Roosevelt rode through Harlem in an open car.

A reader's response to my column about the mandated change from incandescent light bulbs to CFL bulbs: "It would be far better to exchange the corrupt hacks in Congress for some winos from the Bowery. Such a transition should open a new bright era for America."

Even if you think our presidential choices this election year are between disgust and disaster, anyone who has ever been through a real disaster can tell you that this difference is not small. It is big enough to go vote on election day.

One of the ways in which people are similar is in the lengths to which they will go in order to show that they are different.

Over the years, slowly but surely, we have painted ourselves into a corner on a whole range of issues, where we can no longer say or do what makes the most sense to us, but only what is considered to be politically correct.

The great Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that a good catchword could stop people from thinking for 50 years. The big catchword this election year is "change"-- and it has already stopped many people's thinking in its tracks.

It would be hard to think of a more ridiculous way to make decisions than to transfer those decisions to third parties who pay no price for being wrong. Yet that is what at least half of the bright ideas of the political left amount to.

Unlike most politicians, Barack Obama does not waffle. He comes out boldly, saying mutually contradictory things.

At one time, to call someone "green" was to disparage them as inexperienced or immature. Today, to call someone green is to exalt them as one of the environmentalist saviors of the planet. But it is amazing how many people are green in both senses. Some people who think it is wrong to tell children to believe in Santa Claus nevertheless think it is all right to tell adults to believe that the government can give the whole population things that we cannot afford ourselves. Believing in Santa Claus is apparently bad for children but OK for adults.

The best explanation I have heard as to why Hillary Clinton is continuing to campaign, at a cost of millions of dollars a month, is that she wants to damage Obama enough for him to lose the general election this fall, leaving her as the obvious front-runner for the Democrats' nomination in 2012.

Even drugs which have been used safely for years in Europe or elsewhere cannot be sold in the United States without the approval of the Food and Drug Administration-- which can take years, while people suffer and die from a lack of that drug. Why not allow such drugs to be sold with a bright red label that says: "THIS DRUG IS NOT APPROVED BY THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION. NOR IS IT DISAPPROVED"?

The phrase "war on terror" is an unfortunate choice of words. It is the terrorists who openly declared war on us. Whatever the reasons for going into Iraq, that is where international terrorists have converged to fight their war against the United States. Pulling out of Iraq will not stop the terrorists' war on us, but only give them a huge victory as the war shifts to another front.

If Barack Obama had given a speech on bowling, it might well have been brilliant and inspiring. But instead he actually tried bowling and threw a gutter ball. The contrast between talking and doing could not have been better illustrated.

"McCarthyism" is a term used to dismiss the threat of internal subversion and espionage. But whatever the sins of Senator Joe McCarthy, the efforts of others showed that Alger Hiss was not a figment of anyone's imagination, nor was the espionage of the Rosenbergs that turned American atomic secrets over to Stalin, or the espionage networks to which Michael Straight, once editor of the New Republic, belatedly admitted being part of.

Whoever said that overnight is a lifetime in politics knew what he was talking about. Just 6 months ago, the big question was how Hillary and Giuliani would do against each other in this year's presidential elections.
---

Mascot Politics
Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, May 27, 2008

Years ago, when Jack Greenberg left the NAACP Legal Defense Fund to become a professor at Columbia University, he announced that he was going to make it a point to hire a black secretary at Columbia.

This would of course make whomever he hired be seen as a token black, rather than as someone selected on the basis of competence.

This reminded me of the first time I went to Milton Friedman's office when I was a graduate student at the University of Chicago back in 1960, and I noticed that he had a black secretary. This was four years before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and there was no such thing as affirmative action.

It so happened that Milton Friedman had another black secretary decades later, at the Hoover Institution-- and she was respected as one of the best secretaries around.

When I mentioned to someone at the Hoover Institution that I was having a hard time finding a secretary who could handle a tough job in my absence, I was told that I needed someone like Milton Friedman's secretary-- and that there were not many like her.

At no time in all these years did I hear Milton Friedman say, either publicly or privately, that he had a black secretary.

William F. Buckley's wife once mentioned in passing, at dinner in her home, that she had been involved for years in working with a school in Harlem. But I never heard her or Bill Buckley ever say that publicly.

Nor do conservatives who were in the civil rights marches in the South, back when that was dangerous, make that a big deal.

For people on the left, however, blacks are trophies or mascots, and must therefore be put on display. Nowhere is that more true than in politics.

The problem with being a mascot is that you are a symbol of someone else's significance or virtue. The actual well-being of a mascot is not the point.

Liberals all across the country have not hesitated to destroy black neighborhoods in the name of "urban renewal," often replacing working-class neighborhoods with upscale homes and pricey businesses-- neither of which the former residents can afford.

In academia, lower admissions standards for black students is about having them as a visible presence, even if mismatching them with the particular college or university produces high dropout rates.

The black students who don't make it are replaced by others, and when many of them don't make it, there are still more others.

The point is to have black faces on campus, as mascots symbolizing what great people there are running the college or university.

Many, if not most, of the black students who do not make it at big-name, high-pressure institutions are perfectly qualified to succeed at the normal range of colleges and universities.

Most white students would also punch out if admitted to schools for which they don't have the same qualifications as the other students. But nobody needs white mascots.

Various empirical studies have indicated that blacks succeed best at institutions where there is little or no difference between their qualifications and the qualifications of the other students around them.

This is not rocket science but it is amazing how much effort and cleverness have gone into denying the obvious.

A study by Professor Richard Sander of the UCLA law school suggests that there may be fewer black lawyers as a result of "affirmative action" admissions to law schools that are a mismatch for the individuals admitted.

Leaping to the defense of black criminals is another common practice among liberals who need black mascots. Most of the crimes committed by black criminals are committed against other blacks. But, again, the actual well-being of mascots is not the point.

Politicians who use blacks as mascots do not hesitate to throw blacks to the wolves for the benefit of the teachers' unions, the green zealots whose restrictions make housing unaffordable, or people who keep low-price stores like Wal-Mart out of their cities.

Using human beings as mascots is not idealism. It is self-aggrandizement that is ugly in both its concept and its consequences.
---

A Living Lie
Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, April 15, 2008

An e-mail from a reader said that, while Hillary Clinton tells lies, Barack Obama is himself a lie. That is becoming painfully apparent with each new revelation of how drastically his carefully crafted image this election year contrasts with what he has actually been saying and doing for many years.

Senator Obama's election year image is that of a man who can bring the country together, overcoming differences of party or race, as well as solving our international problems by talking with Iran and other countries with which we are at odds, and performing other miscellaneous miracles as needed.

There is, of course, not a speck of evidence that Obama has ever transcended party differences in the United States Senate. Voting records analyzed by the National Journal show him to be the farthest left of anyone in the Senate. Nor has he sponsored any significant bipartisan legislation -- nor any other significant legislation, for that matter.

Senator Obama is all talk -- glib talk, exciting talk, confident talk, but still just talk.

Some of his recent talk in San Francisco has stirred up controversy because it revealed yet another blatant contradiction between Barack Obama's public image and his reality.

Speaking privately to supporters in heavily left-liberal San Francisco, Obama let down his hair and described working class people in Pennsylvania as so "bitter" that they "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them."

Like so much that Obama has said and done over the years, this is standard stuff on the far left, where guns and religion are regarded as signs of psychological dysfunction -- and where opinions different from those of the left are ascribed to emotions ("bitter" in this case), rather than to arguments that need to be answered.

Like so many others on the left, Obama rejects "stereotypes" when they are stereotypes he doesn't like but blithely throws around his own stereotypes about "a typical white person" or "bitter" gun-toting, religious and racist working class people.

In politics, the clearer a statement is, the more certain it is to be followed by a "clarification," when people react adversely to what was plainly said.

Obama and his supporters were still busy "clarifying" Jeremiah Wright's very plain statements when it suddenly became necessary to "clarify" Senator Obama's own statements in San Francisco.

People who have been cheering whistle-blowers for years have suddenly denounced the person who blew the whistle on what Obama said in private that is so contradictory to what he has been saying in public.

However inconsistent Obama's words, his behavior has been remarkably consistent over the years. He has sought out and joined with the radical, anti-Western left, whether Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers of the terrorist Weatherman underground or pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli Rashid Khalidi.

Obama is also part of a long tradition on the left of being for the working class in the abstract, or as people potentially useful for the purposes of the left, but having disdain or contempt for them as human beings.

Karl Marx said, "The working class is revolutionary or it is nothing." In other words, they mattered only in so far as they were willing to carry out the Marxist agenda.

Fabian socialist George Bernard Shaw included the working class among the "detestable" people who "have no right to live." He added: "I should despair if I did not know that they will all die presently, and that there is no need on earth why they should be replaced by people like themselves."

Similar statements on the left go back as far as Rousseau in the 18th century and come forward into our own times.

It is understandable that young people are so strongly attracted to Obama. Youth is another name for inexperience -- and experience is what is most needed when dealing with skillful and charismatic demagogues.

Those of us old enough to have seen the type again and again over the years can no longer find them exciting. Instead, they are as tedious as they are dangerous.
---

Race and Politics
Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, March 18, 2008

There is something both poignant and galling about the candidacy of Barack Obama.

Any American, regardless of party or race, has to find it heartening that the country has reached the point where a black candidate for President of the United States sweeps so many primaries in states where the overwhelming majority of the population is white.

We have all seen the crowds enthralled by Barack Obama's rhetoric and theatrical style.

Many of his supporters put their money where their mouths were, so that this recently arrived Senator received more millions of dollars in donations than candidates who have been far more visible on the national stage for far more years.

That's the good news. The bad news is that Barack Obama has been leading as much of a double life as Eliot Spitzer.

While talking about bringing us together and deploring "divisive" actions, Senator Obama has for 20 years been a member of a church whose minister, Jeremiah Wright, has said that "God Bless America" should be replaced by "God damn America" -- among many other wild and even obscene denunciations of American society, including blanket racist attacks on whites.

Nor was this an isolated example. Fox News Channel has played tapes of various sermons of Jeremiah Wright, and says that it has tapes with hours of more of the same.

Wright's actions matched his words. He went with Louis Farrakhan to Libya and Farrakhan received an award from his church.

Sean Hannity began reporting on Jeremiah Wright back in April of 2007. But the mainstream media saw no evil, heard no evil and spoke no evil.

Now that the facts have come out in a number of places, and can no longer be suppressed, many in the media are trying to spin these facts out of existence.

Spin number one is that Jeremiah Wright's words were "taken out of context." Like most people who use this escape hatch, those who say this do not explain what the words mean when taken in context.

In just what context does "God damn America" mean something different?

Spin number two is that Barack Obama says he didn't hear the particular things that Jeremiah Wright said that are now causing so much comment.

It wasn't just an isolated remark. Nor were the enthusiastic responses of the churchgoers something which suggests that this anti-American attitude was news to them or something that they didn't agree with.

If Barack Obama was not in church that particular day, he belonged to that church for 20 years. He made a donation of more than $20,000 to that church.

In all that time, he never had a clue as to what kind of man Jeremiah Wright was? Give me a break!

You can't be with someone for 20 years, call him your mentor, and not know about his racist and anti-American views.

Neither Barack Obama nor his media spinmeisters can put this story behind him with some facile election year rhetoric. If Senator Obama wants to run with the rabbits and hunt with the hounds, then at least let the rabbits and the hounds know that.

The fact that Obama talks differently than Jeremiah Wright does not mean that his track record is different. Barack Obama's voting record in the Senate is perfectly consistent with the far left ideology and the grievance culture, just as his wife's statement that she was never proud of her country before is consistent with that ideology.

Senator Barack Obama's political success thus far has been a blow for equality. But equality has its down side.

Equality means that a black demagogue who has been exposed as a phony deserves exactly the same treatment as a white demagogue who has been exposed as a phony.

We don't need a President of the United States who got to the White House by talking one way, voting a very different way in the Senate, and who for 20 years followed a man whose words and deeds contradict Obama's carefully crafted election year image.
---

Obama's Speech
Thomas Sowell
Wednesday, March 19, 2008

Did Senator Barack Obama's speech in Philadelphia convince people that he is still a viable candidate to be President of the United States, despite the adverse reactions to statements by his pastor, Jeremiah Wright?

The polls and the primaries will answer that question.

The great unasked question for Senator Obama is the question that was asked about President Nixon during the Watergate scandal; What did he know and when did he know it?

Although Senator Obama would now have us believe that he is shocked, shocked, at what Jeremiah Wright said, that he was not in the church when pastor Wright said those things from the pulpit, this still leaves the question of why he disinvited Wright from the event at which he announced his candidacy for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination a year ago.

Either Barack Obama or his staff must have known then that Jeremiah Wright was not someone whom they wanted to expose to the media and to the media scrutiny to which that could lead.

Why not, if it is only now that Senator Obama is learning for the first time, to his surprise, what kinds of things Jeremiah Wright has been saying and doing?

No one had to be in church the day Wright made his inflammatory and obscene remarks to know about them.

The cable news journalists who are playing the tapes of those sermons were not there. The tapes were on sale in the church itself. Obama knew that because he had bought one or more of those tapes.

But even if there were no tapes, and even if Obama never heard from other members of the church what their pastor was saying, he spent 20 years in that church, not just as an ordinary member but also as someone who once donated $20,000 to the church.

There was no way that he didn't know about Jeremiah Wright's anti-American and racist diatribes from the pulpit.

Someone once said that a con man's job is not to convince skeptics but to enable people to continue to believe what they already want to believe.

Accordingly, Obama's Philadelphia speech -- a theatrical masterpiece -- will probably reassure most Democrats and some other Obama supporters. They will undoubtedly say that we should now "move on," even though many Democrats have still not yet moved on from George W. Bush's 2000 election victory.

Like the Soviet show trials during their 1930s purges, Obama's speech was not supposed to convince critics but to reassure supporters and fellow-travelers, in order to keep the "useful idiots" useful.

Best-selling author Shelby Steele's recent book on Barack Obama ("A Bound Man") has valuable insights into both the man and the circumstances facing many other blacks -- especially those who were never part of the black ghetto culture but who feel a need to identify with it for either personal, political or financial reasons.

Like religious converts who become more Catholic than the Pope, such people often become blacker-than-thou. For whatever reason, Barack Obama chose a black extremist church decades ago -- even though there was no shortage of very different churches, both black and white -- in Chicago.

Some say that he was trying to earn credibility on the ghetto streets, to facilitate his work as a community activist or for his political career. We may never know why.

But now that Barack Obama is running for a presidential nomination, he is doing so on a radically different basis, as a post-racial candidate uniquely prepared to bring us all together.

Yet the past continues to follow him, despite his attempts to bury it and the mainstream media's attempts to ignore it or apologize for it.

Shelby Steele depicts Barack Obama as a man without real convictions, "an iconic figure who neglected to become himself."

Senator Obama has been at his best as an icon, able with his command of words to meet other people's psychic needs, including a need to dispel white guilt by supporting his candidacy.

But President of the United States, in a time of national danger, under a looming threat of nuclear terrorism? No.
---

How Obama Won -- and May Win
Patrick J. Buchanan
Tuesday, June 10, 2008

"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. ... I mean, that's a storybook, man."

Thus did Joe Biden famously describe his rival for the nomination, Barack Obama, to the The New York Observer, a year ago.

Biden, however, thought Obama might not be able to win the fall election, as he is "a one-term, a guy who has served for four years in the Senate. ... I don't recall hearing a word from Barack about a plan or a tactic."

Biden was forced to apologize, but was dead on in discerning Barack's strengths as a candidate in the primaries, which might prove weaknesses in the fall.

A new face in the game, Barack opened with three aces. He opposed the Iraq war, the defining issue in a party that had come to detest the war. He was an African-American. Thus, as the hopes of millions rose that he could be the first black president, there were surges of black voters whom he begin to sweep 90-10.

Lastly, Barack is a natural, a Mickey Mantle, a superb political athlete like JFK, who has looks, charm, youth and a speaking style that can move crowds to cheers or laughter.

Barack was thus able to unite the McGovern wing -- young, idealistic, liberal, anti-war -- with the Jesse Jackson quadrant of the party, black folks, and defeat Hillary's coalition of working-class Catholics, women, seniors and Hispanics.

As of today, by the traditional metrics of national politics, Democrats should roll up a victory this fall like FDR's first in 1932.

Bush's disapproval is near 70 percent, and 80 percent of the country believes the nation is on the wrong course. Unemployment is rising. Surging gas and food prices compete for the top story not only on business pages but front pages, with home foreclosures and the housing slump. Family incomes of Middle Americans have ceased to rise, as millions of their best jobs have been outsourced overseas.

Yet, national polls show McCain-Obama a close race, and the electoral map points to critical problems for Barack.

He seeks, for example, to target Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico. But in all three the Hispanic vote may be decisive. And Barack was beaten by Hillary two to one among Hispanics, and between these two largest of America's minorities, rivalry and tension are real and rising.

Barack must hold Michigan and Pennsylvania and pick up Ohio or Virginia. Yet, his weakness among Southern and working-class whites and women is remarkable. By two to one they rejected him.

After his string of primary and caucus victories in February, Barack proceeded to lose Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, then West Virginia by 41, Kentucky by 35, Puerto Rico two to one and South Dakota by 10. That last one Barack was supposed to win.

The longer the campaign went on, the more reluctant Democrats seemed to be to embrace his nomination.

What is Barack's problem?

Middle America knows little about him, and much of what they know they do not like. When West Virginians were asked what they knew about Barack, a plurality said the Rev. Wright was his pastor. In Pennsylvania, a goodly slice of Democrats knew Barack had said they were "bitter" about being left behind and were clinging to their bigotries, Bibles and guns.

By June, resistance to Barack's nomination in the party that he now leads was extraordinary, stemming from a belief that he is too naive to be commander in chief in wartime and too far left, and does not like or understand Middle America or its values.

"He is not one of us."

And if Barack cannot erase this hardening perception in the American mind, he will not be president.

Democrats may talk of making the economy the issue this fall, but Republicans are going to make Barack the issue. Story line: We cannot entrust our beloved America, in a time of war, to this radical and exotic figure who has so many crazy and extremist associates.

Barack's problem is thus Reagan's problem.

As the country wished to be rid of Jimmy Carter in 1980, so the nation today wishes to be rid of Bush and his Republicans. But America is apprehensive over a roll of the dice, in Bill Clinton's metaphor.

How did Reagan ease the anxiety? In the debate with Carter, he came off as conservative, yes, but also traditional, mainstream, witty and the more likable man. The real Reagan came through.

With his persona, Barack may be able to do the same -- in the debates. The problem is that he had two dozen debates with Hillary and, by the end of the primary season, five months after it began, he was still losing ground.
---

The Audacity of Rhetoric
Thomas Sowell
Wednesday, March 26, 2008

It is painful to watch defenders of Barack Obama tying themselves into knots trying to evade the obvious.

Some are saying that Senator Obama cannot be held responsible for what his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, said. In their version of events, Barack Obama just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time -- and a bunch of mean-spirited people are trying to make something out of it.

It makes a good story, but it won't stand up under scrutiny.

Barack Obama's own account of his life shows that he consciously sought out people on the far left fringe. In college, "I chose my friends carefully," he said in his first book, "Dreams From My Father."

These friends included "Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk rock performance poets" -- in Obama's own words -- as well as the "more politically active black students." He later visited a former member of the terrorist Weatherman underground, who endorsed him when he ran for state senator.

Obama didn't just happen to encounter Jeremiah Wright, who just happened to say some way out things. Jeremiah Wright is in the same mold as the kinds of people Barack Obama began seeking out in college -- members of the left, anti-American counter-culture.

In Shelby Steele's brilliantly insightful book about Barack Obama -- "A Bound Man" -- it is painfully clear that Obama was one of those people seeking a racial identity that he had never really experienced in growing up in a white world. He was trying to become a convert to blackness, as it were -- and, like many converts, he went overboard.

Nor has Obama changed in recent years. His voting record in the U.S. Senate is the furthest left of any Senator. There is a remarkable consistency in what Barack Obama has done over the years, despite inconsistencies in what he says.

The irony is that Obama's sudden rise politically to the level of being the leading contender for his party's presidential nomination has required him to project an entirely different persona, that of a post-racial leader who can heal divisiveness and bring us all together.

The ease with which he has accomplished this chameleon-like change, and entranced both white and black Democrats, is a tribute to the man's talent and a warning about his reliability.

There is no evidence that Obama ever sought to educate himself on the views of people on the other end of the political spectrum, much less reach out to them. He reached out from the left to the far left. That's bringing us all together?

Is "divisiveness" defined as disagreeing with the agenda of the left? Who on the left was ever called divisive by Obama before that became politically necessary in order to respond to revelations about Jeremiah Wright?

One sign of Obama's verbal virtuosity was his equating a passing comment by his grandmother -- "a typical white person," he says -- with an organized campaign of public vilification of America in general and white America in particular, by Jeremiah Wright.

Since all things are the same, except for the differences, and different except for the similarities, it is always possible to make things look similar verbally, however different they are in the real world.

Among the many desperate gambits by defenders of Senator Obama and Jeremiah Wright is to say that Wright's words have a "resonance" in the black community.

There was a time when the Ku Klux Klan's words had a resonance among whites, not only in the South but in other states. Some people joined the KKK in order to advance their political careers. Did that make it OK? Is it all just a matter of whose ox is gored?

While many whites may be annoyed by Jeremiah Wright's words, a year from now most of them will probably have forgotten about him. But many blacks who absorb his toxic message can still be paying for it, big-time, for decades to come.

Why should young blacks be expected to work to meet educational standards, or even behavioral standards, if they believe the message that all their problems are caused by whites, that the deck is stacked against them? That is ultimately a message of hopelessness, however much audacity it may have.
---

Republicans and Blacks
Thomas Sowell
Thursday, April 10, 2008

If Senator John McCain needed to prove that he is a real Republican, he did it when he continued an old Republican tradition of utterly inept attempts to appeal to black voters.

Senator McCain was booed at a recent memorial on the anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. In typical Republican fashion, he tried to apologize but the audience was not buying it and let him know it.

Why would Senator McCain choose a venue where his rejection was virtually guaranteed? Not only did he not get his message out, the message that came out through the media is that this black audience rejected him, which is readily portrayed as if blacks in general rejected him.

The Republican strategy for making inroads into the black vote has failed consistently for more than a quarter of a century. Yet it never seems to occur to them to change their approach.

The first thing that they do that is foredoomed to failure is trying to reach blacks through the civil rights organizations and other institutions of the black establishment. The second proven loser is trying to appeal to blacks by offering the same kinds of things that Democrats offer-- token honors, politically correct rhetoric and welfare state benefits.

Blacks who want those things know that they can already get them from the Democrats. Why should they listen to Republicans who act like imitation Democrats?'

These are not the blacks whose votes Republicans have any realistic hope of getting. Nor do the Republicans need the votes of all blacks. If just 20 percent of blacks begin voting Republican, the Democrats are lost.

The question then is how to have a shot at getting the votes of those blacks who are not in thrall to the current black "leaders" and who on many issues may be conservative.

First of all, you don't get their votes by approaching them from the left, when that is neither their orientation nor yours. Issuing stamps honoring Paul Robeson and Kwanzaa are not the way to reach those blacks whom Republicans have any realistic chance of reaching.

Trying to reach blacks through civil rights organizations that are totally hostile to your message is like a quarterback trying to throw a pass to a receiver surrounded by opposing defenders. That just leads to a lot of interceptions and touchdowns for the other team.

That is essentially what has been happening to the Republicans, as far as the black vote is concerned, for decades on end. Someone once said that a method which fails repeatedly may possibly be wrong.

The truth is something that can attract people's attention, if only for its novelty in politics. There is no need for Republicans to try to pose as saviors of blacks. Democrats do that and they have more experience doing it.

A sober presentation of the facts-- "straight talk," if you will-- gives Senator McCain and Republicans their best shot at a larger share of the votes of blacks. There is plenty to talk straight about, including all the things that the Democrats are committed to that work to the disadvantage of blacks, beginning with Democrats' adamant support of teachers' unions in their opposition to parental choice through vouchers.

The teachers' unions are just one of the sacred cow constituencies of the Democratic Party whose agendas are very harmful to blacks.

Black voters also need to be told about the tens of thousands of blacks who have been forced out of a number of liberal Democratic California counties by skyrocketing housing prices, brought on by Democratic environmentalists' severe restrictions on the building of homes or apartments.

The black population of San Francisco, for example, has been cut in half since 1970 -- and San Francisco is the very model of a community of liberal Democrats, including green zealots who are heedless of the consequences of their actions on others.

Then there are the effects of tort lawyers in raising prices, liberal judges turning criminals loose and other influential Democratic Party constituencies whose effects on blacks are strictly negative.

Where should these and other messages be delivered to blacks, if not through the existing black organizations?

That message can be delivered as part of televised speeches addressing other major issues facing the country. It can be delivered as part of advertisements in the general media and separately in advertisements in newspapers, magazines and television programs with a black audience.

Logistics are not the problem. Insistence on following a repeatedly failed game plan is.
---

D'OH-bama's Mortgage Industry Mess
By Michelle Malkin
June 11, 2008

If you're going to promise "new politics," it would probably be wise to eschew the same old Beltway cronies and insiders who have served presidential nominees of yore.

And if you're going to attack political opponents for playing "textbook Washington games," it would probably be best not to play them yourself. If you do, you'll end up tongue-tied in front of the cameras, hung by your own holier-than-thou rhetoric and faced once again with the decision to throw another bad choice under the bus.

Yes, Barack Obama, we're talking about you. Again. It's getting mighty crowded under that bus, isn't it?

Last week, D'Oh-bama announced the appointment of D.C. denizens Jim Johnson and Eric Holder to head his veep search committee -- along with a Kennedy (Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg) thrown in for glamorous good measure. John McCain supporters rightly jumped on Johnson and Holder as shady Washington operators. Holder was the Clinton Justice Department official in the middle of the sleazy pardon for fugitive financier Marc Rich.

Johnson, who has advised past failed Democratic nominees Walter Mondale and John Kerry, was CEO of the beleaguered, government-backed mortgage giant, Fannie Mae. Over the weekend, The Wall Street Journal reported that Johnson accepted more than $7 million in below-market-rate loans from scandal-plagued subprime lender Countrywide Financial Corp. The company's CEO, Angelo Mozilo, had set up a very special loan program for his high-powered pals. Johnson had named Mozilo to Fannie Mae's national advisory committee more than a decade ago and they maintained a cozy friendship.

Mozilo also happens to be one of Obama's fattest targets in his frequent broadsides against the demons of the mortgage industry. Obama likened Mozilo to a virus in March: "These are the people who are responsible for infecting the economy and helping to create a home foreclosure crisis." Channeling Jesse Jackson, Obama further chided: "These executives crossed the line to boost their bottom line." During the battle with Hillary, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe was dispatched to the cable TV airwaves to inveigh: "If we're really going to crack down on the practices that caused the credit and housing crises, we're going to need a leader who doesn't owe these industries any favors." And so on.

Yesterday, after a barrage of questions from McCain bloggers, Countrywide critics and Clinton operatives, ABC News asked Obama about the stunningly obvious hypocrisy. The result was, well, painful.

Struck with an apparent case of restless mouth syndrome, Obama first indignantly rejected the notion that he should pick his veep pickers more carefully: "Well, look, the, the, I mean -- first of all I am not vetting my VP search committee for their mortgages."

Translation: I will remain willfully blind to the conflicts of interest created by my own mortgage industry-bashing rhetoric.

Next, Obama leaned on his "Washington games" crutch and attempted to distance himself from the appointees whom he has assigned the most important and intimate of tasks: "You're going to have to direct -- it becomes sort of a -- this is a game that can be played -- everybody, who is tangentially related to our campaign, I think, is going to have a whole host of relationships. I would have to hire the vetter to vet the vetters."

"Tangential"? He appointed them to search for his second in command. "Tangential" is the cleaning lady in his Sioux Falls campaign office.

Finally, channeling Bill Clinton's "is-is" parsing, Obama attempted to argue that his dubious veep selection committee members don't really "work" for him: "They're performing that job well. It's a volunteer, unpaid position. And they're giving me information, and I will then exercise judgment in terms of who I want to select as a vice presidential candidate. So these aren't folks who are working for me, they're not people I have assigned to a particular job in a future administration."

There are only so many gaffes, missteps, mistakes, flubs and self-delusional statements one can make before serial naivete becomes endemic stupidity. Obama has reached the point of no return.
---

Say Goodbye To The Glowbama Mystique
By Michelle Malkin
March 19, 2008

Barack Obama -- the self-anointed soul-fixing, nation-healing political Messiah -- has lost his glow. That is the takeaway from the beleaguered Democratic presidential candidate's "major" speech in Philadelphia yesterday.

For all of his supposedly unique and transcendent understanding of race in America, Obama's talk amounted to the same old, same old. The Glowbama mystique has gone the way of the Emperor's clothes. Instead of accountability, we got excuses. Instead of disavowal of demagoguery, we got whacked with the moral equivalence card. Instead of rejecting the Blame America mantra of left-wing black nationalism, we got more Blame Whitey. Same old, same old.

For two decades, Obama tethered himself to a fire-breathing pastor peddling bitter Marxist "black liberation theology" in the name of God. Behind the "audacity of hope" was a grievance-mongering preacher animated by the voracity of hate. And understand this: The Reverend Jeremiah Wright and Barack Obama were not merely passing "associates." They were mentor and mentee, guru and student, with fates and fortunes intertwined.

For two decades, while using the church to build his Chicago power base and credibility in the black community, Obama turned a deaf ear to Wright's AIDS conspiracy theories, class warfare rants, anti-Israel, anti-white raves, and "God damn America" diatribes. These weren't occasional outbursts. They were the bread and butter of the Trinity United Church of Christ. Now, Obama blames "talk show hosts and conservative commentators" for exposing Wright's race-based rancor. Audacious, indeed.

On Friday, Obama attempted to minimize the extent to which he had been exposed to Wright's poisonous politicking on the pulpit. "None of these statements were ones that I had heard myself personally in the pews," he told Major Garrett of Fox News. "The other statements were ones that I just heard about while we were -- when they started being run on FOX and some of the other stations. And so they weren't things that I was familiar with."

Yesterday, Obama changed his tune: "I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Rev. Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes."

The clever Sen. Obama has attempted to erect a firewall of protection from probing questions about which remarks he heard and tolerated and failed to object to while sitting in the pews. Dwelling on what he knew and where and when, he argued yesterday, would be "to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality."

But it is Obama's pastor ("former" pastor, he is so quick to point out now, though he is a two-decade-long mentor) who holds a warped view of reality. And it is Obama who distorts the truth by likening this Ward Churchill of the United Church of Christ to an avuncular, yet lovable, family member who cannot easily be renounced:

"I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother -- a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe."

Glad to know something made Obama cringe.

Even as he denied that he was justifying and excusing Wright's demagoguery, Obama was doing just that by invoking slavery, Jim Crow, segregated schools, violence in the inner city and, yes, denial of access to FHA mortgages, to explain how we get to Wright spewing "God damn America" on Sunday morning.

"These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love," Obama declared rather stiffly as he stood self-consciously in front of more American flags that he has ever been placed in front of this campaign season.

Well, you can't pick your grandma, but you can pick your pastor. And Obama picked the wrong one if he aspires to be the president of all America -- an America that includes citizens of all colors who cringe at self-serving racial rationalizations masquerading as moral salvation.
---

Michelle Obama's America -- And Mine
By Michelle Malkin
February 20, 2008

Like Michelle Obama, I am a "woman of color." Like Michelle Obama, I am a working mother of two young children. Like Michelle Obama, I am a member of the 13th generation of Americans born since the founding of our great nation.

Unlike Michelle Obama, I can't keep track of the number of times I've been proud -- really proud -- of my country since I was born and privileged to live in it.

At a speech in Milwaukee this week on behalf of her husband's Democratic presidential campaign, Mrs. Obama remarked, "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country, and not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change."

Mrs. Obama's statement was met with warm applause from other Barack supporters who have apparently also been devoid of pride in their country for their adult lifetimes. Or maybe it was just a Pavlovian response to the word "change." What a sad, empty, narcissistic, ungrateful, unthinking lot.

I'm just seven years younger than Mrs. Obama. We've grown up and lived in the same era. And yet, her self-absorbed attitude is completely foreign to me. What planet is she living on? Since when was now the only time the American people have ever been "hungry for change"? Michelle, ma belle, Barack is not the center of the universe. Newsflash: The Obamas did not invent "change" any more than Hillary invented "leadership" or John McCain invented "straight talk."

We were both adults when the Berlin Wall fell, Michelle. That was earth-shattering change.

We've lived through two decades' worth of peaceful, if contentious election cycles under the rule of law, which have brought about "change" and upheaval, both good and bad.

We were adults through several launches of the space shuttle, in case you were snoozing. And as adults, we've witnessed and benefited from dizzyingly rapid advances in technology, communications, science and medicine pioneered by American entrepreneurs who yearned to change the world and succeeded. You want "change"? Go ask the patients whose lives have been improved and extended by American pharmaceutical companies that have flourished under the best economic system in the world.

If American ingenuity, a robust constitutional republic and the fall of communism don't do it for you, hon, then how about American heroism and sacrifice?

How about every Memorial Day? Every Veterans Day? Every Independence Day? Every Medal of Honor ceremony? Has she never attended a welcome home ceremony for the troops?

For me, there's the thrill of the Blue Angels roaring over cloudless skies. And the somber awe felt amid the hallowed waters that surround the sunken U.S.S. Arizona at the Pearl Harbor memorial.

Every naturalization ceremony I've attended, where hundreds of new Americans raised their hands to swear an oath of allegiance to this land of liberty, has been a moment of pride for me. So have the awesome displays of American compassion at home and around the world. When millions of Americans rallied to help victims of the 2004 tsunami in Southeast Asia -- including members of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group that sped from Hong Kong to assist survivors -- my heart filled with pride. It did again when the citizens of Houston opened their arms to Hurricane Katrina victims and folks across the country rushed to their churches, and Salvation Army and Red Cross offices to volunteer.

How about American resilience? Does that not make you proud? Only a heart of stone could be unmoved by the strength, valor and determination displayed in New York, Washington, D.C., and Shanksville, Pa., on September 11, 2001.

I believe it was Michael Kinsley who quipped that a gaffe is when a politician tells the truth. In this case, it's what happens when an elite Democratic politician's wife says what a significant portion of the party's base really believes to be the truth: America is more a source of shame than pride.

Michelle Obama has achieved enormous professional success, political influence and personal acclaim in America. Ivy League-educated, she's been lauded by Essence magazine as one of the 25 World's Most Inspiring Women; by Vanity Fair as one of the 10 World's Best-Dressed Women; and named one of "The Harvard 100" most influential alumni. She has had an amazingly blessed life. But you wouldn't know it from her campaign rhetoric and her griping about her and her husband's student loans.

For years, we've heard liberals get offended at any challenge to their patriotism. And so they are again aggrieved and rising to explain away Mrs. Obama's remarks.

Lady Michelle and her defenders protest too much.
---

Obama's Un-Disownable Preacher Of Hate
By Michelle Malkin
April 30, 2008

Barack Obama looked pale and wan at what he called his "big press conference" about the Rev. Jeremiah Wright on Tuesday afternoon. Numb. Chastened. Defeated. Extolled for his eloquence, Obama stuttered and stammered his way through the question-and-answer session. It appeared he was having an out-of-body experience.

Who knew that the greatest threat to his presidential campaign would come from the preacher who married him, baptized him and prayed with him? Barack Obama should have known. That's who. Take that judgment and shove it on a pretty campaign poster.

"Yes, we can"? Try "Yes, you should have."

For the past 24 hours, Obama's campaign too slowly grappled with how to handle the aftermath of Wright's whirlwind tour of hatred this weekend -- from Dallas, where he decried his "public crucifixion," to Detroit, where he entertained NAACP bigwigs with impersonations of white people, mockeries of classical music and "white" marching bands, and lectures on racial brain theories, to the National Press Club, where he preened, strutted and head-wagged his way through an hour of bitter black liberation theologizing.

At first, Obama downplayed Wright's public appearances. But Obama now tells us he had to wait 24 hours to convene a press conference to denounce Wright's National Press Club speech because he "hadn't seen it." After all this time on the campaign trail, we're back to the Obama-as-clueless-naif narrative again. When he finally did view the Washington speech, Obama explained, he was "shocked" and "outraged" and "saddened" because "the person I saw was not the person that I'd come to know over 20 years."

What a load of pure unadulterated horse manure. Anyone with eyes can see that Wright's performances are finely honed, time-tested acts. His anti-white, anti-American, "imperialist"-bashing shtick was not developed overnight or over the past few years. He's been peddling AIDS conspiracies for decades. He's been grievance-mongering about slavery for decades. He's been flirting with the Nation of Islam, which provided security for his speeches, for decades. He's been a shouting left-wing radical for decades.

Obama's best-selling "Audacity of Hope" is named after the first sermon of Wright's that he heard -- decades ago -- in which the pastor of racial resentment inveighed against an environment "where white folks' greed runs a world in need, apartheid in one hemisphere, apathy in another hemisphere." Yet, only now has Obama concluded that Wright's sermons are "a bunch of rants that aren't grounded in truth."

Welcome to the Jive Talk Express.

A reader of mine who is a clergyman e-mailed after Obama's press conference: "As a pastor, I have this take: It is inconceivable that Obama had no knowledge of Wright's views after 20 years as a member of that church. As a pastor, my heart-held, deepest beliefs and passions cannot be silenced. It is what I am. If I were given a microphone at the National Press Club, I would not speak on something that I had guardedly kept secret for most of my life. No, I would go to my main point, the center of my ministry, the core of my passion, to speak truth as I know it to be. How can Obama actually claim that this is news from his pastor? His mailman, butcher or plumber? No problem. His pastor? No way!"

It's not Wright who has changed his loony tune.

It was just last year that Obama was telling the Chicago Tribune that Wright was his sounding board for truth: "What I value most about Pastor Wright is not his day-to-day political advice. He's much more of a sounding board for me to make sure that I am speaking as truthfully about what I believe as possible and that I'm not losing myself in some of the hype and hoopla and stress that's involved in national politics."

It was just this March, in his Philadelphia racial reconciliation speech, that Obama was urging us not to dismiss Wright as a "crank or a demagogue" and protesting that he could "no more disown him than I can disown the black community."

Now, realizing how gravely his self-serving association with Wright has wounded his campaign, Obama himself has attempted to do both those things -- and expects the American public to believe him when he weakly and belatedly asserts that "when I say I find [Wright's] statements appalling, I mean it."

As those of us with non-European brains might put it: You be trippin', Barry.
---

Barack Obama's Bitter Half
By Michelle Malkin
May 7, 2008

Are you ready for hope and change? Barack Obama better hope his bitter half has a change of attitude if she expects to assume the title of first lady in November. She's been likened to John F. Kennedy's wife, what with her chic suits and pearls and perfectly coiffed helmet hair. But when she opens her mouth, Michelle O is less Jackie O and more Wendy W -- as in Wendy Whiner, the constantly kvetching "Saturday Night Live" character from the early 1980s.

When last our worldviews collided, back in February, the other Michelle was expounding on her lack of pride in America. I gave her myriad reasons to cheer up -- from America's role in the fall of communism to our unparalleled generosity to our nation's superior economic system, cultural resilience, entrepreneurial spirit and ingenuity. But since then, Mrs. Obama has dug in her $500 Jimmy Choo heels and solidified her role in the 2008 presidential campaign as Queen of the Grievance-Mongers.

In one of her few (unintentionally) funny moments during a recent sit-down with comedian Stephen Colbert, Mrs. Obama claimed, "Barack and I tend to look at the positives." That's a side-splitter. As National Review's Yuval Levin put it, Michelle Obama is "America's unhappiest millionaire." And she has the audacity to extrapolate her misery and her husband's alleged victimization to the "vast majority of Americans."

In South Carolina, she called America "just downright mean" and bemoaned "a nation of struggling folks who are barely making it every day." And in case you hadn't heard enough of her carping about how hard it is for a seven-figure-earning family to pay for ballet lessons and piano lessons and pay off college loans, Mrs. Oh-Woe-Is-Me was at it again on the campaign trail in Indiana and North Carolina before Tuesday's primary.

On the stump, she warmed up (or rather, berated) supporters by complaining about how her husband is an underdog even after he keeps winning primary and caucus after primary and caucus. With a scowl etched on her face, she bellyached that "the bar is constantly changing for this man." Call the waambulance, stat.

Barack Obama, the missus explains, is Everyman who has ever been put down by The Man. And "understand this" (a condescending verbal tic shared by both Obamas): Mrs. Obama is here to make sure you feel their pain. Which is really your pain. Because the hardships of a privileged Ivy League couple are "exactly" the same as the travails of miners or service workers or small-business owners: "So the bar has been shifting and moving in this race," she grumbles, "but the irony is, the sad irony is, that's exactly what is happening to most Americans in this country."

Don't tell Miss Michelle about the Great Depression or the Carter Malaise. "Folks are struggling like never before," she seethes.

Well, yes, gas prices are up. Some food prices are rising. And borrowers who bought more housing than they could afford are underwater. But "struggling like never before"? Didn't they teach her about Hoovervilles and stagflation?

In Mrs. Obama, the fear-mongering pot meets the angst-stirring kettle: "Fear," she froths, "creates this veil of impossibility and it is hanging over all of our heads."

But what Mrs. Obama lacks in pride for her country and its promise she more than makes up for with bottomless pride for her husband. Her standard campaign speeches include at least a dozen references to how "proud" she is of him. And of herself. And of everyone who has overcome The Man and pierced the "veil of impossibility" to get to the polls and vote Obama. An online MSNBC report on a joint appearance by the Obamas on the "Today" show in the wake of the Jeremiah Wright debacle included this tellingly narcissistic passage:

[Mrs. Obama]: "'I'm so proud of how he has maintained his dignity, his cool, his honor.'

"Obama gently tried to interrupt, admitting to being embarrassed by the praise.

"'But I am proud of you,' she said.

"'I know,' he replied."

We all know. So get over yourself already, haughty spirit. Pride doesn't photograph well. And bitterness leaves frown lines. Which means Botox bills. Which "struggling folks" like you and your husband simply cannot afford.

Try smiling for once. It's cheaper.
---

Barack Obama: Gaffe Machine
By Michelle Malkin
May 21, 2008

All it takes is one gaffe to taint a Republican for life. The political establishment never let Dan Quayle live down his fateful misspelling of "potatoe." The New York Times distorted and misreported the first President Bush's questions about new scanner technology at a grocers' convention to brand him permanently as out of touch.

But what about Barack Obama? The guy's a perpetual gaffe machine. Let us count the ways, large and small, that his tongue has betrayed him throughout the campaign:

-- Last May, he claimed that tornadoes in Kansas killed a whopping 10,000 people: "In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died -- an entire town destroyed." The actual death toll: 12.

-- Earlier this month in Oregon, he redrew the map of the United States: "Over the last 15 months, we've traveled to every corner of the United States. I've now been in 57 states? I think one left to go."

-- Last week, in front of a roaring Sioux Falls, S.D., audience, Obama exulted: "Thank you, Sioux City. ... I said it wrong. I've been in Iowa for too long. I'm sorry."

-- Explaining last week why he was trailing Hillary Clinton in Kentucky, Obama again botched basic geography: "Sen. Clinton, I think, is much better known, coming from a nearby state of Arkansas. So it's not surprising that she would have an advantage in some of those states in the middle." On what map is Arkansas closer to Kentucky than Illinois?

-- Obama has as much trouble with numbers as he has with maps. Last March, on the anniversary of the Bloody Sunday march in Selma, Ala., he claimed his parents united as a direct result of the civil rights movement:

"There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Ala., because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born."

Obama was born in 1961. The Selma march took place in 1965. His spokesman, Bill Burton, later explained that Obama was "speaking metaphorically about the civil rights movement as a whole."

-- Earlier this month in Cape Girardeau, Mo., Obama showed off his knowledge of the war in Afghanistan by homing in on a lack of translators: "We only have a certain number of them, and if they are all in Iraq, then it's harder for us to use them in Afghanistan." The real reason it's "harder for us to use them" in Afghanistan: Iraqis speak Arabic or Kurdish. The Afghanis speak Pashto, Farsi or other non-Arabic languages.

-- Over the weekend in Oregon, Obama pleaded ignorance of the decades-old, multi-billion-dollar massive Hanford nuclear waste cleanup:

"Here's something that you will rarely hear from a politician, and that is that I'm not familiar with the Hanford, uuuuhh, site, so I don't know exactly what's going on there. (Applause.) Now, having said that, I promise you I'll learn about it by the time I leave here on the ride back to the airport."

I assume on that ride, a staffer reminded him that he's voted on at least one defense authorization bill that addressed the "costs, schedules, and technical issues" dealing with the nation's most contaminated nuclear waste site.

-- Last March, the Chicago Tribune reported this little-noticed nugget about a fake autobiographical detail in Obama's "Dreams from My Father":

"Then, there's the copy of Life magazine that Obama presents as his racial awakening at age 9. In it, he wrote, was an article and two accompanying photographs of an African-American man physically and mentally scarred by his efforts to lighten his skin. In fact, the Life article and the photographs don't exist, say the magazine's own historians."

-- And in perhaps the most seriously troubling set of gaffes of them all, Obama told a Portland crowd over the weekend that Iran doesn't "pose a serious threat to us" -- cluelessly arguing that "tiny countries" with small defense budgets can't do us harm -- and then promptly flip-flopped the next day, claiming, "I've made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave."

Barack Obama -- promoted by the Left and the media as an all-knowing, articulate, transcendent Messiah -- is a walking, talking gaffe machine. How many more passes does he get? How many more can we afford?

Michelle Malkin is author of "Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild." Her e-mail address is malkinblog@gmail.com.
---

John McCain: The Geraldo Rivera Republican
By Michelle Malkin
January 23, 2008

Editor's Note: The following column contains language that may be offensive to some readers.

After spearheading a disastrous, security-undermining illegal alien amnesty bill last year with Teddy Kennedy, "straight-talking" GOP Sen. John McCain claims he has seen the light. In TV appearances, he vows to put immigration enforcement first. On the campaign trail, he offers a perfunctory promise to strengthen border security and emphasizes the need to restore Americans' trust in their government's ability to defend the homeland.

"I got the message," he told voters in South Carolina. "We will secure the borders first."

But how can McCain cure citizens' distrust when his own credibility on the issue remains fatally damaged? He doesn't believe his own election-year spin. And he knows we know it. This is cynicism on steroids with a speedball chaser.

Not all of us have forgotten how the short-fused Arizona senator cursed good-faith opponents in his own party ("F**k you!" and "Chickensh*t" were the choice words he had for Texas GOP Sen. John Cornyn during a spat over enforcement provisions). Not all of us have forgotten that he voted against barring felons from receiving amnesty benefits under his plan. Not all of us have forgotten the underhanded, debate-sabotaging manner in which McCain/Kennedy/Lindsey Graham/Harry Reid conspired to ram their package down voters' throats.

His admission of the shamnesty failure is grudging and bitter. While he now tells conservative voters what they want to hear about the need to build the southern border fence, he takes a contemptuous tone toward physical barriers when talking to businessmen. "By the way, I think the fence is least effective," he told executives in Milwaukee, according to a recent Vanity Fair profile. "But I'll build the goddamned fence if they want it." Straight talk? Try hate talk.

For all his supposed newfound enlightenment about what most Americans want -- protection against invasion, commitment to the rule of law, meaningful employer sanctions, an end to sanctuary cities, enforcement-by-attrition plus deportation reform, and an end to special illegal alien benefits that invite more law-breaking -- The Maverick remains a Geraldo Rivera Republican. Like the ethnocentric cable TV host who can't string a sentence about immigration together without drowning in demagoguery, McCain naturally resorts to open-borders platitudes when pressed for enforcement specifics.

Instead of emphasizing the need for local and state cooperation with federal immigration authorities to prevent the release of illegal alien criminals or discussing 100 percent preventable crimes by illegal alien thugs who should never have been on American soil in the first place, McCain harps on open-borders sob stories. Several times over the past year, in response to citizen questioners who have expressed frustration with the lack of accountability for immigration law-breakers, McCain has responded: "I am not going to call up a soldier and tell him I am deporting his mother. ... I'm not going to do it. You can do it."

But what if that mother had stolen an American citizen's Social Security number to work here illegally? What if she had been previously deported, re-entered illegally, and had been convicted of previous crimes? What if she were part of a human smuggling ring? What if she had been working in a sensitive area -- airport security, a military base, a port? Would he still refuse to abide by his constitutional obligation to provide for the common defense and secure the blessings of liberty for law-abiding Americans?

If McCain refuses to enforce immigration law against illegal alien parents of soldiers, what about illegal alien soldiers who used stolen or fake identification to get into the military? And why only illegal alien parents of soldiers? Why not illegal alien parents of police officers, teachers, doctors and store owners? McCain's selective enforcement policy is the exact recipe for immigration anarchy that we have today.

The hothead has succeeded in intimidating voters and eluding tough questions from the press by playing his rhetorical violin. There is a reason so many liberals in the media and the Democratic Party want John McCain to be the GOP presidential nominee. He gives them cover to continue smearing grassroots conservatives.

In Michigan, the illegal alien parent-of-a-soldier story was met with boos. McCain's cheerleaders at The New York Times and other press outlets attempted to depict the detractors as insensitive and racist boors -- just as they did during last year's ill-fated shamnesty campaign.

McCain has learned nothing. What about us?
---

Bipartisan Primary Blues: In defense of smoke-filled rooms
By Thomas Sowell

Leaders of the Democratic party and much of the media are wringing their hands over what to do about Democratic voters in Florida and Michigan, in order not to leave them out of the process of picking a nominee, which might alienate them as far as the general election in November is concerned.

Like so many things that politicians do that end up in a tangled mess, the current rules and practices may have been things that “seemed like a good idea at the time.”

There might be a lesson there about not getting carried away with rhetoric, and about the need to stop and think through the consequences before the consequences overwhelm you.

Do we want the magic words of “universal health care” to end up in a similar tangled mess — as it has already in some other countries — while we end up saying, “it seemed like a good idea at the time”?

The idea behind letting “the people” decide whom the Democratic party should nominate for president of the United States was that such things should not be decided behind closed doors by party bigwigs in the proverbial smoke-filled room.

But, in this context and in many others, the question must be asked: Who are “the people”?

We are not talking about the American people as a whole or even a majority of the members of a given party. We are talking about those who happen to show up on primary election day or at the caucuses, including in some states people who are registered members of the opposition party.

Not only in primary elections, but in other local elections — and especially in off-year local elections — vested interests such as the teachers’ union can get a big turnout that can give a disproportionate weight to people who are nowhere near a majority but who can win big time with one-fourth or less of the electorate.

Is that the voice of “the people”?

As far as party primaries are concerned, both Republican- and Democratic-party primaries are dominated by the most zealous voters, whose views may not reflect the views of most members of their own respective parties, much less the views of those who are going to vote in the November general election.

In recent times, each election year has seen each party’s nominee selected — or at least subject to veto — by its most extreme wing and then forced to try to move back to the center before the general election.

This can only undermine the public’s confidence in the integrity of the candidates of both parties.

Back in the bad old days of the smoke-filled rooms, people with a long-term stake in their party had to take into account what the American public at large wanted, because that would determine who would actually get elected to the White House and the Congress, who in turn would then decide who would be put on the federal courts across the land, including the Supreme Court.

It is by no means clear that “the people” voting in primaries have made better choices than those made in the smoke-filled rooms. More important, those who regard the present system as sacrosanct don’t even want to make such a comparison.

It is questionable whether any of the three candidates still viable in the Republican or Democratic parties would have been chosen by either party if those with a long-run stake in the future of those parties had made the decision.

All three candidates have a lot of baggage.

Nevertheless, no one dares change the rules in the middle of the game. The big question, however, is whether either party’s leaders will have the courage to change the rules after this fall’s election.

Back in 1944, the Democratic party’s leaders, knowing that President Franklin D. Roosevelt was in such frail health that he was not likely to live out his next term, decided that the choice of vice-presidential nominee was too important to let go by default to the current vice president, Henry Wallace.

They proposed that little-known senator Harry Truman be put on the ticket instead, and FDR went along with it. You would have to know what a dingbat Henry Wallace was to realize how the smoke-filled room saved this nation from disaster.
---

President Obama and the Coming Stock Market Crash
http://w3.newsmax.com/a/jun08/?s=al&promo_code=6408-1

How destructive to the U.S. economy would a Barack Obama presidency be? An exclusive Newsmax analysis warns: There could be a very rough time ahead.

Beneath Obama's flowery rhetoric lies a dangerous economic plan that will wreak havoc on the American economy. Obama plans to return to the failed policies of high taxation coupled with an expansion of government spending. Worse, Obama says he is absolutely committed to almost doubling the capital gains rate — something he will easily accomplish with a Democrat Congress.

In the coming months — when investors realize that Obama will raise the cap gains rate — there could be a stampede of asset sales as investors rush to take their profits now to avoid Obama's doubling of the tax rates next year.

All of these issues and more are explored in Newsmax magazine's special report "Obamanomics — the Coming Tax-and-Spend Nightmare," by Wall Street Journal John Fund. This Newsmax magazine special report gives Americans the first in-depth look at the Democratic presidential candidate's likely strategies — and how they will affect not just the larger economy, but your personal wealth as well.

Indeed, Obama makes no bones about his plans to go on a tax rampage. Not only would he increase the capital-gains tax rate from 15 percent to as much as 28 percent, he wants to allow the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts to expire in 2010, which effectively raises taxes on Americans by tens of billions of dollars.

He also wants to do away with the $102,000 FICA payroll tax cap, which means anyone making over $102,000 would pay an additional 7 percent in taxes on earned income -- and the loan dividend tax rate George Bush implemented? Under President Obama it will be DOA!

If you are concerned about your wealth and family's financial well-being — and that the American economy remains strong — you must read this special report and share it with friends and family.

How Obama's policies could cost more than $850 billion over four years
The dire repercussions of Obama's minimum wage proposal for small businesses and retail outlets
Obama aides' private and very revealing admission about the candidate's economic savvy
The surprising revelation when Barack's own tax returns were reviewed by an expert
The "proof" that Obama will kowtow to organized labor
Obama's Social Security plan: a giant income-redistribution scheme
How Obama's policies could boost some tax rates to 60 percent
Leading economist Arthur Laffer's warning on Obamanomics
Obama's policies point by point on energy, healthcare, regulation, and the housing crisis
Who would lose under Obama's tax proposals — and who would win
How Barack "flunked" an easy question on capital gains
The Democrat's contradictory statements on tax increases
Why Obama's campaign against special interests would backfire
Obama's plan to double America's foreign aid
How Obama's trade policies would damage U.S. multinationals
Obama's embarrassing denial regarding NAFTA
The National Taxpayers Union's Obama rating: just 5 percent
Obama's misguided views on technology's future
How the Democrat would undermine private sector healthcare
Obama's tactics — old left-wing populist, Marxist ploys
---

Obama Explains National Anthem Stance

Hot on the heels of his explanation for why he no longer wears a flag pin, presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama was forced to explain why he doesn't follow protocol when the National Anthem is played.

According to the United States Code, Title 36, Chapter 10, Sec. 171...... During rendition of the national anthem when the flag is displayed, all present except those in uniform are expected to stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart.

'As I've said about the flag pin, I don't want to be perceived as taking sides,' Obama said. 'There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression. And the anthem itself conveys a war like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air and all. It should be swapped for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like the song 'I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing.' If that were our anthem, then I might salute it.'

WHAT? Yes, ladies and gentlemen, this could possibly be our next president!
---

Black America Tricked by Obama & White Policticians
By Frosty Wooldridge
January 21, 2008

“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.” – Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Senator Barack Obama voted for the June 2007 immigration amnesty that doubled current immigration levels to two million annually. He voted for complete amnesty for in excess of 20 million illegal aliens. He voted for the Dream Act that took millions of dollars out of the hands of black American college kids’ hands—only to give it to illegal alien students. Fortunately, senators under enormous pressure from American voters defeated both bills.

What’s the problem here? Barack Obama represents the best of African-Americans. Yet, he fails black America miserably! He stands in favor of flooding this country with lower wage labor that destroys any chance for African-Americans to gain a living wage. 

What happens from his actions as well as white politicians?

On Friday, January 18, 2008, Rocky Mountain News journalist Tillie Fong reported, “Homeless given shelter from bitter cold” in Denver Colorado. A picture showed 95 percent of the homeless as Black Coloradan Americans on their way to the shelter.

National figures show over 1.1 million homeless on our streets at any one moment in America. Over 13 million American minority children live below the poverty level.

So, why won’t Obama and white politicians address the fact that in many areas of America, 50 percent of Black Americans cannot find a job? More troubling, 40 to 50 percent of black students fail to graduate from high school depending on state to state statistics. As their family units breaks down, 50 percent suffer out-of-wedlock birth rates?

That dilemma drives more black Americans into welfare rolls, soup kitchens and homeless shelters. It places their children into survival mode of drugs, violence and economic dead ends.

Barbara Coe, of www.ccir.net in California, sent me a distressing notice last week concerning African-Americans.

It read, “In many areas of the country, male African-American unemployment hovers around fifty percent. Many black voters, who have the most to lose, support illegal aliens. Many black politicians support massive immigration and amnesty for illegal aliens even though mass unskilled immigration has dramatic impact on their constituents. While many black families live in poverty throughout America, black politicians are eager to import more poor people who will compete head-to-head for jobs at the lower end of the economic scale. African-Americans are getting misled by their own politicians on a grand scale.

”Legal and illegal immigration has undercut blacks from the jobs they once held in meat plants, service industries and on construction crews. In many cases those were union jobs that paid good wages with full benefits. Now those jobs go to illegal aliens who work for pennies above the minimum wage. Yet from black politicians nary a peep is heard. One explanation is that many black politicians are wealthy and couldn’t care less about the working stiff. Having to compete for jobs with 12-30 million illegal aliens is something few black politicians will be faced with but millions of black and low income Americans will.”

Why do George Bush and Congress support 572,000 troops on 700 bases in 120 countries around the world that cost U.S. taxpayers over $1 trillion annually—but neglect American citizens as collateral damage inside our own country? Ask yourself why Bush supported an immigration bill that doubled current immigration from one to two million annually?

Why do our leaders drown this country with millions of low wage workers when our own citizens hang in the balance? Why prop up Iraq with $2 billion spent weekly for a country that doesn’t want us on their soil? Why do we do it without end while our citizens suffer terrific hardship within our own country?

The irony brings me to Dr. Martin Luther King’s quote! “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.”

Why would Obama ignore the most vulnerable Americans? Why do Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson say nothing and do nothing about unrelenting, unending immigration? What about Dingell, Jefferson, Young and other Black leaders twiddling their thumbs while their constituents languish in soup kitchens, homeless shelters or cardboard boxes under bridges as you read this column?

Two great African-Americans stand up where Obama retreats. Talk show host Terry Anderson and political candidate Ted Hayes in Los Angeles, California speak to black Americans on what they face from the Mexican invasion.

For the past several years, Hayes, a 56-year-old lean and lanky activist, tried to inspire blacks against illegal immigration with fiery appearances on national TV, protest marches, civil disobedience and leadership of Choose Black America, an anti-illegal immigration organization launched and financially supported by the Federation for American Immigration Reform.

"Illegal immigration is the greatest threat to blacks since slavery," Hayes declared at a recent Choose Black America meeting in Inglewood. "Immigrants got our jobs, the hospitals, the schools. Black folks can't compete."

If we continue flooding our country with the poor of other countries, we’ll mushroom the juggernaut of poor in our nation. If we continue ignoring poor Americans while we meddle in other countries’ business—we fail the original intent of our founders of this Constitutional Republic.

One last thought! If we continue adding the poor of other countries, at some point, they grow old without any means of supporting themselves—which will create a whole new form of class poverty. It will prove intractable and unsolvable beyond soup kitchens, homeless shelters and boxes under bridges.

Something grows horribly wrong with the United States of America.
---

BLACK, WHITE, BROWN AND ISLAMIC AMERICA
By Frosty Wooldridge
March 20, 2008
NewsWithViews.com

For the past 20 years and today, presidential candidate Barack Obama attended(s) a Chicago church where Pastor Jeremiah Wright rails against our country by stating in his sermons, “Instead of God bless America, I say, God d**** America.”

With the pews packed, Wright’s vitriolic orations ring to the rafters and black American church-goers cheer, clap and sing against their own country. The venom expressed inside those church walls contradicts everything Jesus Christ expressed in his ministry. Jesus called for forgiveness, understanding, respect and love of your fellow man.

Yet, in the United States, a country populated by people from over 100 countries, Wright condemns everything American. He condemns white people as the scourge of the United States. He blames whites for every short-falling of blacks in America. Never once does Wright mention personal responsibility.

For 20 years Obama supported that kind of rhetoric with thousands of dollars, with marrying his wife and baptizing his two children in that church where so much anger spews out on a weekly basis.

In 2008, Obama wants to bring America together. He wants to mend the racial divide. The question jumps up at you: with anger, venom for one’s country and duplicity of Christ’s teachings?

This week, I talked with Chicagoan Jake Jacobsen of http://www.freedomfolks.com/ about events in the ‘Windy City’ that led up to this week’s expose’ of the Grand Canyon-sized racial divide facing that former all American city.

“Because of a massive influx of illegal aliens now numbering over 2.1 million and disenfranchised American blacks,” Jacobsen said, “we have three distinct sections in Chicago—black, white and brown. We have a perfect example of the results of multiculturalism. Nothing will bridge the gap between the races because the single most important ingredient missing is a common culture.”

To place this dilemma in greater perspective, the Washington, DC grapevine floats the idea that Obama will choose Hispanic Governor Bill Richardson (D-NM) as a vice-presidential running mate in order to sew up 99 percent of the black and Chicano vote.

To counter that, old man McCain may invite Colin Powell as a VP running mate to draw blacks back to the Republican side.

To make political intrigues more interesting, Oprah Winfrey may surprise everyone with a political bombshell of her own as she supports Obama.

Ironically, Obama, the result of a Muslim African-Kenyan father who did not enjoy American citizenship and a white mother, lived his first 10 years in Indonesia with a Muslim step-parent. In fact, Obama cannot be called an all American man. Further, much of what Pastor Wright spews during Sunday sermons reeks of Malcolm X and other Muslim anger.

If you look at the growing Muslim presence in Detroit, Michigan, you stand as an eye-witness to another section of non-American separation. As their numbers grow, we Americans may be surprised by ‘sudden jihad syndrome’ that Paris, France; London, England and Madrid, Spain experienced as their Islamic immigrants gained greater numbers. Their cultural anger bombed subways, trains and fire-bombed cities for weeks.

Multiculturalism equates with the same success as Marxism. It can only work with the power that comes out of the barrel of a gun.

We face growing millions of Mexican illegals waving their green, white and red flags while speaking their native language. They demand amnesty and full voting rights. They force their language and culture upon our nation at breakneck speed. We face millions of displaced, jobless American blacks suffering 50 percent high school drop out rates, 50 percent fatherless children and 50 percent without jobs. We face two to three million Muslim Americans, most born outside our country-- with their own kind of anger toward America as we bomb their Muslim brothers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Who knows how many Muslim ministers in those American mosques replicate Pastor Wright’s righteous indignation?

Finally, we see millions of white Americans hanging on by their fingernails as their jobs outsource, insource and offshore at the hands of Congress. We see foreclosures implode the middle class out of its own homes at record breaking rates. Meanwhile, the Iraq War costs that same middle class $12 billion a month with no end in sight while our borders remain wide open to facilitate another 9/11 event.

All the while, millions upon millions of Americans watch their nation swirl the drain with clueless apathy. And into the mix, we add another 2.5 to 3.0 million immigrants annually.

To that I pray, “God help America!”

"To sit back hoping that someday, someway, someone will make things right – is to go on feeding the crocodile, hoping he will eat you last – but eat you he will." ~ Ronald Reagan
---

WHAT TO DO WHEN YOU DON'T LIKE ANY OF THESE CANDIDATES
By Tom DeWeese
NewsWithViews.com

Hillary Clinton. John McCain. Barack Obama. Those are our choices for the next president of the United States. Are you happy with that selection? If not, what is your alternative? As the saying goes, “The lesser of two evils is still evil.”

Beyond the presidential race we have congressional candidates, governors, state legislators, county commissioners, mayors, and city council candidates. Are you happy with whom the parties have chosen to offer for election? If not, what’s your alternative?

The real issues of the day are not even being addressed in the campaigns. The falling dollar that will render our money worthless; the rising gas prices that grab the last of our worthless money; the invasion of illegal aliens that are changing our society; the globalization of our economy; assaults on our private property; the loss of American jobs to foreign countries; and now the threat of food shortages.

These are real problems facing every American, yet it is apparently politically incorrect to discuss them. There are no questions concerning these issues during debates, on Sunday morning political talk shows, or anywhere in the news media in relationship to the candidates. It’s not there. Not to be discussed. The powers in charge are picking the issues – no matter how frustrated the electorate is.

Is it any wonder that there are millions of Americans who don’t vote or participate in our nation’s debate because they think it doesn’t matter anyway. The “average voter” increasingly feels that the decisions have been made for them.

College students, just starting out in the world, wide eyed and ready to make a difference, end up just shrugging their shoulders at the selection of candidates and stay home.

Those who hold conservative points of view that our nation should live within the Constitution now believe socialism is inevitable, so why bother going to the polls.

And the poor think they are simply pawns in a vice grip between big money and special interests which control the elections. Why bother? Helplessness now rules the world’s greatest representative democracy. As people stay home or trudge to the polls to unenthusiastically vote to the next lesser of two evils, 93% of incumbents are routinely returned to office – year after year after year.

The instant a candidate is elected and joins the ranks of the incumbents he/she begins the dance. Get the money for the next campaign. How? Special interests groups, corporations and foreign interests flood into their offices to make deals, promote their personal agendas and show the way to fame, fortune and perpetual office – if only the incumbents go along. They have the whole process well in hand. Campaigns become little more than big PR projects, promoted in positive platitudes, specifically designed to assure nothing negative sticks. Just get through it and keep the gravy train running.

Above all, do not talk about controversial subjects like dollar values, global trade or immigration; just stick to issues like health care and the environment – coincidentally, two issues bought and paid for by the special interests. See how it works?

So year after year we officially hold elections and politicians pontificate about how our going to the polls is a revered right; a valued tradition; the underpinning of a free society. And they wonder why there is such division in the nation. How did we end up in such a mess? We voted for these guys. But did we enjoy it? Are we satisfied with the results? Would we like to demand a do over?

Don’t despair. Don’t give up. There is a logical, effective way out of this. But it won’t happen by depending on political parties to lead the way. We have to take things into our own hands. We need an effective, binding form of protest to say NO to bad candidates. There is such a way.

Imagine going into the voting booth and looking down the list of candidates offered. None really appeal. None seem to offer satisfaction as an answer to the issues that concern you. If only there was something else you could do. A write in won’t help. It would take such a difficult, expensive effort. It rarely works.

Then you look further down the ballot. Something new. It says “NONE OF THE ABOVE.” It’s a final choice after the candidates – after the candidates in every category, from president, to congress to city council. What does it mean?

It means you have the power to decide who will hold office – not the power brokers. When the votes are tallied, if “NONE OF THE ABOVE” gets a majority of votes over any of the candidates listed, then “NONE OF THE ABOVE” wins. And that means none of those candidates will win the office. The election will have to be held again and new candidates will have to try to win the public’s support.

Fixing the election process could be that simple. You, the voter, would be completely in the driver’s seat with the power to reject candidates, forcing a new election with new choices. The political parties would be forced to provide candidates the people want -- or face being rejected. They would have to talk about real issues – or face being rejected. Incumbents would have to answer for their actions in office – or face being rejected. “NONE OF THE ABOVE.” Period. The power of labor unions and international corporations would be broken.

Think of the consequences. No longer would voters have to settle for the lesser of two evils. If all the candidates are bad – none would be able to force their way into office. It would mean that powerful special interests could no longer rely on their money to buy elections. They could buy all the ads they wanted, spend millions on “volunteers” going door to door, and sling their dirt, but if the voters aren’t buying, none of it will save their candidate from being rejected by “NONE OF THE ABOVE.”

Moreover, the power of entrenched incumbents who have been unbeatable because of their massive war chests and party ties would be broken. Picture Ted Kennedy unable to run for office because he was rejected by “NONE OF THE ABOVE.”

However, in order to work, “NONE OF THE ABOVE” would have to be binding. It would have to have the power of law behind it. It cannot be just a “protest” vote that has no other meaning.

“NONE OF THE ABOVE” is completely non-partisan. There is no way to control its outcome. There is no need for a massive campaign chest to support “NONE OF THE ABOVE,” although it could certainly be done. But the option, once permanently placed on the ballot, would always be there. America’s representative system would be restored.

To get the job done, activists in every state would have to begin a campaign to demand that “NONE OF THE ABOVE” be given a permanent spot on the ballot. It would have to be done state by state. Some states have ballot referendums and initiatives using petition drives to get an issue on the ballot so the people can decide. It’s difficult and expensive to do, but popular ideas have a chance.

In other states, “NONE OF THE ABOVE” advocates would have to find a friendly state representative or senator to introduce the idea before the state legislature and then get enough votes to pass it in both houses and then signed by the governor. And if the effort is successful then every one of those legislators is an incumbent who will have to face “NONE OF THE ABOVE” or the ballot for their re-election. They probably won’t be too excited about the idea.

Of course, one of their main objections to the “NONE OF THE ABOVE” idea would be the requirement for holding a new election should it win. Too expensive, our responsible public servants would say as they dismissed the idea. The fact is, such a need would probably not arise often once political power brokers began to understand that they must offer candidates acceptable to the people rather than to the special interests. That’s all they really have to do. It’s all we want.

The fact is, the idea of “NONE OF THE ABOVE” has been around for a long time. Over the years, most states have had some kind of legislation introduced supporting the concept. Nevada actually has it on the ballot – but it is not binding. It doesn’t force a new election. It is just a measure of protest. That’s not good enough to make it effective.

One of the reasons it has not been successful is because there has never been a serious national drive to promote the idea. However, with the growing dissatisfaction voters are feeling with the quality of candidates running for public office, particularly in the presidential campaign, perhaps there has never been a better time to start a national discussion on the issue.

The best part is that “NONE OF THE ABOVE” isn’t a conservative or liberal idea. It’s not a Republican of Democrat proposal. In fact, Republican leadership might see it as a good way to break the back of big labor’s influence over elections. Equally, Democrats could see it as a way to stop the power and influence of the Republican’s big business money. However they want to look at it, the bottom line is that the voters win.

So as we sigh and moan over the choices of Obama, Hillary and McCain, let’s start the debate and as Larry the Cable Guy says, “let’s get ‘er done.” Perhaps by the next election cycle we won’t have to take it anymore! (See the movie "None of the Above")
---

This is the simplest, most understandable and truest explanation of the woes of the nation and who caused them, as well as how to cure them. This should be sent to every person in the U.S., including the '545'.

545 People
By Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, The Federal Reserve Bank does.

You and I don't propose war, the President does, then the 545 enacts it and when they do they know they have to provide the funds. They vote for it and then they are against it?

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices - 545 human beings out of the 300 million - are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress.

In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority.

They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman or a president to do one cotton-picking thing.

I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall.
No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits.

The president can only propose a budget.

He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes.

Who is the speaker of the House?

She is the leader of the majority party.

She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want.

If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts - of incompetence and irresponsibility.

I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people.

When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.

If the Marines are in IRAQ, it's because they want them in IRAQ.

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power.

Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like 'the economy,' 'inflation' or 'politics' that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.

They, and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses - provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!
---

EDITORIAL EXEGESIS
“Back from the front, Gen. David Petraeus called on Congress Thursday to begin considering a drawdown of U.S. troops after five years of war. Violence in Iraq has plunged to its lowest levels since 2004, and al-Qaida is a tattered shadow of its former self—key leaders dead, successors weak and recruiting down. ’My sense’ Petraeus said, ‘is I will be able to make a recommendation (in the autumn) for further reductions.’ This is no Saigon-style exit, but a coming victorious end of a long conflict. U.S. forces have pounded al-Qaida into irrelevance.

Using highly disciplined Special Forces strikes, advanced intelligence and communications, and local allies in the right places, 155,000 U.S. troops have been crushing a vicious enemy motivated by no rational forces in a war with no precedent. They are winning against all odds, overcoming not just terrorists, but other obstacles such as a lumbering Pentagon bureaucracy and weak-kneed Western intelligentsia whose media toadies trump every military error and harp on every isolated bad deed. Now proven wrong, these same critics retaliate by ignoring what is a very big story.

Worldwide terror attacks have fallen off 40% since 2001, according to a study by Canada’s Human Security Report Project, and support for al-Qaida in the Arab world has collapsed. The study found terror attacks had been over-counted because Iraq War atrocities distorted the figures. Security gains elsewhere included even sub-Saharan Africa, where the improvement was called ‘extraordinary.’

Just as the conflict in Iraq is coming to a close, two related terror wars—in Spain and Colombia—are also seeing signs of victory... From the deserts of Iraq to the villages of Spain to the jungles of Colombia, these victories against terrorist groups are all linked. They are the result of using proven tactics, holding together resolutely, cooperating with other nations to share and deliver intelligence, and fo! rming un ited fronts. When this happens, terrorists cannot flourish. Recent successes show that these wars are winnable.” —Investor’s Business Daily
---

Jay Leno on President Bush (it's the Jay Leno we don't often see...)

As most of you know I am not a President Bush fan, nor have I ever been, but this is not about Bush, it is about us, as Americans, and it seems to hit the mark. 'The other day I was reading Newsweek magazine and came across some poll data I found rather hard to believe. It must be true given the source, right?

The Newsweek poll alleges that 67 percent of Americans are unhappy with the direction the country is headed and 69 percent of the country is unhappy with the performance of the President. In essence 2/3 of the citizenry just ain't happy and want a change. So being the knuckle dragger I am, I started thinking, 'What are we so unhappy about?''

A. Is it that we have electricity and running water 24 hours a day, 7 Days a week?

B. Is our unhappiness the result of having air conditioning in the summer and heating in the winter?

C. Could it be that 95.4 percent of these unhappy folks have a job?

D. Maybe it is the ability to walk into a grocery store at any time and see more food in moments than Darfur has seen in the last year?

E. Maybe it is the ability to drive our cars and trucks from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean without having to present identification papers as we move through each state?

F. Or possibly the hundreds of clean and safe motels we would find along the way that can provide temporary shelter?

G. I guess having thousands of restaurants with varying cuisine from around the world is just not good enough either.

H. Or could it be that when we wreck our car, emergency workers show up and provide services to help all and even send a helicopter to take you to the hospital.

I. Perhaps you are one of the 70 percent of Americans who own a home.

J. You may be upset with knowing that in the unfortunate case of a fire, a group of trained firefighters will appear in moments and use top notch equipment to extinguish the flames, thus saving you, your family, and your belongings.

K. Or if, while at home watching one of your many flat screen TVs, a burglar or prowler intrudes, an officer equipped with a gun and a bullet-proof vest will come to defend you and your family against attack or loss.

L. This all in the backdrop of a neighborhood free of bombs or militias raping and pillaging the residents. Neighborhoods where 90% of teenagers own cell phones and computers.

M. How about the complete religious, social and political freedoms we enjoy that are the envy of everyone in the world?

Maybe that is what has 67% of you folks unhappy. Fact is, we are the largest group of ungrateful, spoiled brats the world has ever seen.

No wonder the world loves the U.S. , yet has a great disdain for its citizens. They see us for what we are. The most blessed people in the world who do nothing but complain about what we don't have, and what we hate about the country instead of thanking the good Lord we live here.

I know, I know. What about the president who took us into war and has no plan to get us out? The president who has a measly 31 percent approval rating? Is this the same president who guided the nation in the dark days after 9/11? The president that cut taxes to bring an economy out of recession? Could this be the same guy who has been called every name in the book for succeeding in keeping all the spoiled ungrateful brats safe from terrorist attacks? The commander in chief of an all-volunteer army that is out there defending you and me?

Did you hear how bad the President is on the news or talk show? Did this news affect you so much, make you so unhappy you couldn't take a look around for yourself and see all the good things and be glad? Think about it......are you upset at the President because he actually caused you personal pain OR is it because the 'Media' told you he was failing to kiss your sorry ungrateful behind every day. Make no mistake about it.

The troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have volunteered to serve, and in many cases may have died for your freedom. There is currently no draft in this country. They didn't have to go. They are able to refuse to go and end up with either a ''general'' discharge, an 'other than honorable'' discharge or, worst case scenario, a ''dishonorable'' discharge after a few days in the brig.

So why then the flat-out discontentment in the minds of 69 percent of Americans?

Say what you want but I blame it on the media. If it bleeds it leads and they specialize in bad news. Everybody will watch a car crash with blood and guts. How many will watch kids selling lemonade at the corner? The media knows this and media outlets are for-profit corporations. They offer what sells, and when criticized, try to defend their actions by 'justifying' them in one way or another. Just ask why they tried to allow a murderer like O.J. Simpson to write a book about how he didn't kill his wife, but if he did he would have done it this way......Insane! Turn off the TV, burn Newsweek, and use the New York Times for the bottom of your bird cage. Then start being grateful for all we have as country. There is exponentially more good than bad. We are among the most blessed people on Earth and should thank God several times a day, or at least be thankful and appreciative.' 'With hurricanes, tornados, fires out of control, mud slides, flooding, severe thunderstorms tearing up the country from one end to another, and with the threat of bird flu and terrorist attacks, 'Are we sure this is a good time to take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance?'

Jay Leno
---

A missionary's perspective who knows the Obama family

Thanks for sending out an alert about Obama. We are living and working in Kenya for almost twelve years now and know his family (tribe) well. They are the ones who were behind the recent Presidential election chaos here. Thousands of people have been displaced by election violence(over 350,000) and I don't know the last count of the dead. Obama under 'friends of Obama' gave almost a million dollars to the opposition campaign who just happened to be his cousin, Raila Odinga, who is a socialist trained in East Germany. He has been trying to bring Kenya down for years and the last president threw him in prison for trying to subvert this country! December 27th elections brought cries from ODM (Odinga Camp) of rigged election. Obama and Raila speak daily. As we watch Obama rise in the US we are sure that whatever happens, he will use the same tactic, crying rigged election if he doesn't win and possibly cause a race war in America.

What we would like you to know is what the American press has been keeping a dirty little secret. Obama IS a Muslim and he IS a racist and this is a fulfillment of the 911 threat that was just the beginning. Jihad is the only true Muslim way. We have been working with them for 20 years this July! He is not an American as we know it. Please encourage your friends and associates not to be taken in by those that are promoting him. It is world wide jihad. All our friends in Europe are very disturbed by the Muslim infiltration into their countries. By the way, his true name is Barak Hussein Muhammed Obama. Won't that sound sweet to our enemies as they swear him in on the Koran!

God Bless you.

Pray for us here in Kenya. We are still fighting for our nation to withstand the same kind of assault that every nation, including America, is fighting: takeover from the outside to fit the new world order. As believers, this means we will be the first targets. Here in Kenya, not one mosque was burned down, but hundreds of churches were burned down, some with people in them, burned alive.

Jesus Christ is our peace but the new world order of Globalism has infiltrated the church and confused believers into thinking that they can compromise and survive. It won't be so. I will send you a newsletter we sent out in February documenting in a more cohesive manner what I've tried to say in a few paragraphs.

Love, Celeste

Celeste and Loren Davis
About our Father's business!
Luke 2:49b
---

Choosing Obama Based on Race is Fine
By Selwyn Duke

Today I'm responding to a reader who is quite dismissive about the truth regarding race and Barack Obama.  He is A.F. and writes:

Hi Mr. Duke

I know its a little late because this article came out in late March, I was itching to comment on it. After reading it, I was left asking, "Well, what's your point?" when you said that Ferraro's comment on "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position." And?

If George Washington was a black man, he would not be the first President of the United States. If Lincoln was a black man, he would have been a slave. If Ronald Reagan was a black man male, he would not have been in his position. Etc, and so forth. The point is, Obama is in his position because of race, but EVERY OTHER President has also been in their position because of their race!

Race mattered sir, race mattered since the founding, and race still matters today. White men have benefited from their dominant position in society for more than half of this country's existence. If they had not been white men, they would not have benefited in the same way, or at all. They would not have been our Presidents, our politicans, or our businessmen. So to somehow twist this into saying, "Obama is only winning and has gotten this far because he's black," is stating something that is in plain sight yes, but its indirectly missing something else: Every President since the founding of our country has gotten that far and won because they were white.

All affirmative action is doing is being conscious of this fact, and rightly placing people who have been historically invidiously discriminated against for the history of the country to positions that, in a country that truly believed from its founding that "all men are created equal" would have already been occupied by them.

Dear A.F.,

Your email is the very quintessence of speciousness; meaning, it seems to be logical or correct but actually is not so.  I strongly suspect that you're missing the nuance I will provide because you're blinded by racial patriotism, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and allow that perhaps you just didn't examine the issue from all sides.

You make two basic mistakes.  First, understand what our goal is in this election: To choose the best possible of, admittedly, very lacking candidates.  Now, your first error is that you confuse limiting "job applicants" based on race with choosing among them based on race.  I'll illustrate the point with an analogy.

Let's say you wanted to find the best -- or at least a highly competent -- basketball player.  How would your chances be better, if you limited your pool of candidates to blacks and chose the best among them, or if you included one white guy in the group and then chose him simply because he was a novelty?  Obviously, the chances that this one white guy who was chosen based solely on race was a great basketball player would be pretty slim.

Now, let's analyze what would happen if you chose from your pool that was limited to blacks.  Sure, it would be entirely possible that the best basketball player in the world was white, in which case it would be impossible to find the best.  However, since you would be choosing based on merit from your pool, you would at least be able to get a good player, maybe a great one, and perhaps even the best. 

This doesn't mean that you would find this type of discrimination more palatable on an emotional level, but feelings aren't good indicators of reality.  And the reality is that such a practice would allow you to achieve your goal, that of getting the best possible of the candidates.

Barack Obama is that novelty, an empty vessel who millions of sheeple are glomming onto simply because of his race.  Sure, most of us would like to have a better group of candidates, in the same way that you obviously wish candidates in the days of yore included blacks and maybe women.  However, because of our twisted, cultural-affirmative-action mindset, we aren't even choosing based on merit from the lacking viable candidates we do have.

The second mistake you make is more elementary.  Even if you were correct in saying that today's practice is the equivalent of what you bemoan about the past, your argument would still be invalid.  You would in essence be saying, "Because we made a mistake years ago, we must make the same one today; because we have always had flaws, we must retain them."  That would be a very destructive tradition, indeed.  It is, quite frankly, stupid.  It's to imply that we can never change for the better, can never learn from the past.  And, if that is so, then we might as well just throw in the towel right now.

You should bear in mind, A.F., that we're engaged in a serious endeavor here.  Namely, electing a person who will shepherd us through increasingly difficult times, an individual who will take the helm of the world's only remaining superpower.  We're not deciding who is going to get the extra piece of cake in the lunchroom today.   So, let's proceed like mature adults, OK?  Applying a quota mentality is destructive and threatens the nation all of us occupy.  And if you can't rise to such a challenge, you should do the country (and yourself) a favor and refrain from voting.

As for me, I not only know whom I'm voting for, I know when.  I cannot vote for the first president or the tenth, but I can vote in 2008.   I exist here and now, and I have a duty to apply the correct standards here and now.  I will draw from the wisdom of the past, but not its mistakes.  For, if I were going to do the latter, I could justify not only choosing candidates on the wrong basis, but also human sacrifice, cannibalism and slavery.

I will mention one more matter.  It's a little silly when people lament the fact that only white men occupied positions of power in our country's past.  All throughout man's history, from one end of the Earth to the other, it was common practice for a civilization's racial or ethnic majority to wield the power.  It is simply man's nature for people to support those with whom they identify.  Thus, lament human nature if you wish, but understand that it's nothing unique to white people's nature.  And it's ridiculous to hold one group's feet to the fire for something common among all groups.  That is, unless you ascribe demigod status to whites, where you assume that they possess a superiority of character and thus have an obligation to occupy a higher moral plane than everyone else.  If that is so, then the problem is simply that they don't live up to your lofty expectations.
---

Who Is Obama? Where Is The Press?
By Tony Blankley
June 11, 2008

How would one sneak a left-wing radical into the Oval Office in broad daylight? Perhaps the same way that President George W. Bush got two strong conservatives on the Supreme Court: Find a candidate without a paper trail on the most controversial issues. For those of us who suspect but cannot yet prove that Barack Obama is a genuine radical leftist, his lack of much of a voting record is going to make it difficult to prove what his real values, policies and motives are to be president.

This is particularly the case because the media is so obviously going to give Obama cover not only for his current revelatory gaffes but also for embarrassing bits from his past.

For example, back on June 2, National Review Online ran an extraordinary article by Stanley Kurtz that closely assessed a 1995 article about Obama by Hank De Zutter titled "What Makes Obama Run?" The essence of his thesis is the following:

"De Zutter's article shows us that the full story of Obama's ties to Pfleger and Wright is both more disturbing and more politically relevant than we've realized up to now. On Obama's own account, the rhetoric and vision of Chicago's most politically radical black churches are exactly what he wants to see more of. True, when discussing Louis Farrakhan with De Zutter, Obama makes a point of repudiating anti-white, anti-Semitic, and anti-Asian sermons. Yet having laid down that proviso, Obama seems to relish the radicalism of preachers like Pfleger and Wright. In 1995, Obama didn't want Trinity's political show to stop. His plan was to spread it to other black churches, and harness its power to an alliance of leftist groups and sympathetic elected officials.

"So Obama's political interest in Trinity went far beyond merely gaining a respectable public Christian identity. On his own account, Obama hoped to use the untapped power of the black church to supercharge hard-left politics in Chicago, creating a personal and institutional political base that would be free to part with conventional Democratic politics. By his own testimony, Obama would seem to have allied himself with Wright and Pfleger, not in spite of, but precisely because of their radical left-wing politics. It follows that Obama's ties to Trinity reflect on far more than his judgment and character (although they certainly implicate that). Contrary to common wisdom, then, Obama's religious history has everything to do with his political values and policy positions, since it confirms his affinity for leftist radicalism."

Now, given how much the media has covered both the Pfleger and Wright matters, when a respectable journal, such as National Review, runs an article by a journalist of established credibility, such as Stanley Kurtz, that suggests a different and far more disturbing interpretation of Obama's relationships with Wright and Pfleger, a responsible mainstream media would seek out Obama and, at the minimum, ask him whether the things the 1995 De Sutter article quotes him as saying are, in fact, things he said. They might even ask him to explain himself. Because if the 1995 article is an accurate reflection of what Obama said, then most of what he has said in the past few months about the Wright affair and Trinity United Church of Christ could not continue to be viewed as believable.

A much more recent example of the media not even going through the motions of being responsible is their almost complete avoidance of a recent statement Obama made:

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK. That's not leadership. That's not going to happen."

Is there absolutely no curiosity at The Washington Post, The Associated Press or even The New York Times about the assertion by the man who is considered likely to be president of the United States come noon Jan. 20, 2009, that letting Americans eat as much as they want is "not going to happen"? Doesn't that shockingly dictatorial assertion deserve comment and inquiry? Yes, it is true that Obama was saying explicitly that what wasn't going to happen was "other countries (saying) OK" to Americans eating as much as we want. But a fair reading of the whole passage suggests that Obama agrees with those other countries. And as president, what exactly would he try to do regarding Americans who want to eat as much as they want (or drive SUVs or set their own thermostats)?

Dictator or democrat? Radical or liberal? Who in the world is this man? Where in the world is the responsible media? What's going on?
---

When I Was a Boy, America Was a Better Place
Dennis Prager
Tuesday, June 10, 2008

The day the O.J. Simpson verdict was announced, I said to my then-teenage son, "David, please forgive me. I am handing over to you a worse America than my father handed over to me."

Unfortunately, I still feel this way.

With the important exception of racial discrimination -- which was already dying a natural death when I was young -- it is difficult to come up with an important area in which America is significantly better than when I was a boy. But I can think of many in which its quality of life has deteriorated.

When I was a boy, America was a freer society than it is today. If Americans had been told the extent and number of laws that would govern their speech and behavior within one generation, they would have been certain that they were being told about some dictatorship, not the Land of the Free. Today, people at work, to cite but one example, are far less free to speak naturally. Every word, gesture and look, even one's illustrated calendar, is now monitored lest a fellow employee feel offended and bring charges of sexual harassment or creating a "hostile work environment" or being racially, religiously or ethnically insensitive, or insensitive to another's sexual orientation.

Meanwhile, all employers in California are now prohibited by law from firing a man who has decided to cross-dress at work. And needless to say, no fellow worker can say to that man, "Hey, Jack, why not wear the dress at home and men's clothes to work?" An employer interviewing a prospective employee is not free to ask the most natural human questions: Are you married? Do you have a child? How old are you? Soon "How are you?" will be banned lest one discriminate on the basis of health.

When I was boy, what people did at home was not their employer's business. Today, companies and city governments refuse to hire, and may fire, workers no matter how competent or healthy, who smoke in their homes. Sarasota, Fla., the latest city to invade people's private lives, would not hire Winston Churchill, Franklin Roosevelt or John F. Kennedy if they applied for a job.

When I was a 7-year-old boy, I flew alone from New York to my aunt and uncle in Miami and did the same thing coming back to New York. I boarded the plane on my own and got off the plane on my own. No papers for my parents to fill out. No extra fee to pay the airline. I was responsible for myself. Had I run away or been kidnapped, no one would have sued the airline. Today, fear of lawsuits is a dominant fact of American life.

When I was a boy, I ran after girls during recess, played dodgeball, climbed monkey bars and sat on seesaws. Today, more and more schools have no recess; have canceled dodgeball lest someone feel bad about being removed from the game; and call the police in to interrogate, even sometimes arrest, elementary school boys who playfully touch a girl. And monkey bars and seesaws are largely gone, for fear of lawsuits should a child be injured.

When I was boy, I was surrounded by adult men. Today, most American boys (and girls, of course) come into contact with no adult man all day every school day. Their teachers and school principals are all likely to be women. And if, as is often the case, there is no father at home (not solely because of divorce but because "family" courts have allowed many divorced mothers to remove fathers from their children's lives), boys almost never come into contact with the most important group of people in a boy's life -- adult men. The contemporary absence of men in boys' lives is not only unprecedented in American history; it is probably unprecedented in recorded history.

When I was a boy, we had in our lives adults who took pride in being adults. To distinguish them from our peers, we called these adults "Mr.," "Mrs." and "Miss," or by their titles, "Doctor," "Pastor," "Rabbi," "Father." It was good for us, and we liked it. Having adults proud of their adulthood, and not acting like they were still kids, gave us security (as well as something to look forward to in growing up). Today, kids are surrounded by peers twice, three, four times their age.

When I was a boy, the purpose of American history textbooks was to teach American history. Today, the purpose of most American history texts is to make minorities and females feel good about themselves. As a result, American kids today are deprived of the opportunity to feel good about being American (not to mention deprived of historical truth). They are encouraged to feel pride about all identities -- African-American, Hispanic, Asian, female, gay -- other than American.

When I was a teenage boy, getting to kiss a girl, let alone to touch her thigh or her breast (even over her clothes) was the thrill of a lifetime. Most of us could only dream of a day later on in life when oral sex would take place (a term most of us had never heard of). But of course, we were not raised by educators or parents who believed that "teenagers will have sex no matter what." Most of us rarely if ever saw a naked female in photos (the "dirty pictures" we got a chance to look at never showed "everything"), let alone in movies or in real life. We were, in short, allowed to be relatively innocent. And even without sex education and condom placement classes, few of us ever got a girl pregnant.

When I was a boy, "I Love Lucy" showed two separate beds in Lucy and Ricky's bedroom -- and they were a married couple. Today, MTV and most TV saturate viewers' lives with sexual imagery and sexual talk, virtually all of which is loveless and, of course, non-marital.

When I was boy, people dressed up to go to baseball games, visit the doctor and travel on airplanes. Today, people don't dress up even for church.

When I was a boy, Time and Newsweek were well written and relied little on pictures and illustrations. Today, those magazines often look like adult comic books by comparison. They are filled with large illustrations and photos, and they dumb down the news with features like "Winners and Losers" and "Who's Up and Who's Down." And when I was a boy, it would have been inconceivable for Time to substitute anything, let alone a tree, for the flag planted by the marines on Iwo Jima.

One might argue that these are the same laments that every previous older generation has expressed -- "Ah, when I was young" But in America, that has not been the case. In America, the older generations tended to say the opposite -- "When I was a kid, things were worse."

Can we return to the America of my youth? No. Can we return to the best values of that time? Yes. But not if both houses of Congress, the presidency and the Supreme Court move the country even further leftward. If that happens, many of the above noted changes will simply be accelerated: More laws restricting "offensive" speech will be enacted; litigation will increase and trial lawyers will gain more power; the American military will be less valued; trees will gradually replace the flag as our most venerated symbol; schools will teach even less as they concentrate even more on diversity, sexuality and the environment; teenage sex will be increasingly accepted; American identity will continue to be replaced by ethnic, racial, gender or "world citizen" identity; and the power of the state will expand further as the power of the individual inevitably contracts. It's hard to believe most Americans really want that.
---

Lessons From the Poor
Cal Thomas
Tuesday, June 10, 2008

Listening to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton repeat stories they claim to have been told by the poor and the unemployed, who are unable to pay for food and medicine and feel miserable about it, is enough to make one think we are living in a Third World dictatorship and not the United States of America. But victimhood and a "can't do" spirit is what the Democratic Party has mostly been about since the Great Depression.

A more positive narrative comes from a new book, "Lessons from the Poor: Triumph of the Entrepreneurial Spirit," edited by Alvaro Vargas Llosa and published by the Independent Institute. The book is an optimistic triumph and a lesson about the unlimited capacity of the human spirit, properly inspired and unencumbered.

In the introduction, Llosa writes, "Entrepreneurial ability and energy are present almost everywhere. But in those countries that still languish in backwardness, the labyrinth intervention of the state and the absence of adequate institutions have kept that ability and energy from translating into full development." He writes of nations that used to be poor but are no longer, detailing how their people climbed out of poverty. He blames political, legal (and I would add in some cases, religious) systems for stifling prosperity.

Llosa is about creating wealth and his inspirational stories about real people and how they did it ought to be read in every school and in every home that has accepted inevitable failure.

In 1988, the Ananos family of Ayacucho, Peru - the cradle of the Maoist terrorist organization known as Shining Path - founded the Kola Real Company. Coca Cola and Pepsi had pulled out due to the unstable political situation. In just 20 years the Ananos family has transformed a mom and pop operation into the biggest transnational manufacturer of nonalcoholic beverages in Latin America. They now have subsidiaries in Mexico, Venezuela, Ecuador, four Central American countries and Thailand. By 2005, they had more than 8 million customers and employed 8,000 workers. Their sales totaled US$1 billion.

The Ananos family overcame years of socialist and populist experiments that hurt Peru's economy. They demonstrate what can be done when obstacles are overcome by the power of optimism.

Aquilino Flores is another Peruvian who started out washing cars 40 years ago. He had no capital. Today, Flores is the most important textile businessman in Peru, heading a company called Topy Top with annual sales of more than US$100 million. As Daniel Cordova writes in his contribution to the book, "Šthe story of the Flores family and Topy Top is one of tenacity, determination and intuition." Didn't we used to teach such things in American schools before class warfare, envy and penalizing the successful?

The story behind Nakumatt, Kenya's largest supermarket chain, could have been written in America. Google Nakumatt for details.

In Nigeria, a clothing design industry has been created to produce and sell adire attire, traditional in the Yoruba culture. There are thousands of adire workers, most of them women with little or no education, but they have "an entrepreneurial drive to make a living and create wealth where there was previously only misery," writes Thompson Ayodele in his essay. "These entrepreneurs receive no government aid. In fact, through action or omission, the government has placed and continues to place many obstacles in their way. Yet they have been able to combat poverty much more effectively than foreign aid and official poverty-reduction programs."

Please re-read that last sentence. Government aid impedes success and creates dependence, while entrepreneurs create success and independence.

In countries with far less capital and opportunity than America, people haven't sung songs about overcoming. They have overcome through tenacity, risk-taking and self-reliance.

During the presidential campaign, each time Barack Obama focuses on misery and the need for more government spending, John McCain should trot-out American stories of the formerly poor and let them tell how they made it so that others can too.

Llosa says Spain is "particularly interesting and instructive for those who think that certain nations are doomed forever by virtue of their culture. In the past two decades, Spain, whose culture was once inimical to notions such as self-reliance and individual initiative, has experienced an economic and social transformation."

If Spain and the poor in Peru and Africa can do it, what's stopping America and poor Americans?
---

Will Big Media Look at Obama and His Leftwing Influences?
Bill Steigerwald
Monday, June 09, 2008

Two weeks ago Cliff Kincaid, president of the conservative group America’s Survival Inc., called a press conference in Washington to challenge the mainstream media to look into the hard-core left-wingers who are known to have influenced Barack Obama -- first as a teenager in Hawaii and later in Chicago. Specifically, Kincaid’s group wants a major news organization to follow up on the investigative work it has done that documents that an elderly black man who mentored Sen. Obama in Hawaii was a lifelong member of the Communist Party USA. Kincaid also would like to see a serious journalistic vetting of Sen. Obama’s relationship with the left-wing radicals in Chicago -- Bill Ayers and others -- who helped Obama launch his political career. I called Kincaid -- whose challenge to the media has yet to be accepted -- on Wednesday, June 4, at his home in southern Maryland.

Q: Can you briefly sum up what you have discovered about Obama’s ideological influences that you say need to be checked out by Big Media?

A: We think all the major candidates should be examined for their ties to foreign and hostile elements. In the case of Obama, he has gotten a very, very favorable press. The media seem reluctant to dig into his background, even though he is relatively new on the political scene. What we discovered, in two different places -- first in Hawaii, where he went to high school, and in Chicago, where he started his political career -- is that he is right in the middle of communist networks. In Hawaii, he was mentored by a member of the Communist Party by the name of Frank Marshall Davis. In Chicago, his career was launched and he was close friends with a number of communists and socialists.

Q: What specifically did your investigation find out about Davis, who Obama calls only “Frank” in his memoir “Dreams from My Father”?

A: What was very disturbing to us was the fact that Barack Obama had covered up the true identity of this “Frank” who played such a role in his life just before he went off to college (in the late 1970s). There are several references in his book to this “Frank.” We discovered that “Frank” was indeed Frank Marshall Davis, who was a member of a Soviet-sponsored communist network on the island of Hawaii. We think Obama should be asked to explain why he didn’t reveal Frank’s true identity in his book. We looked into this and had confirmed by several sources that Frank was indeed Frank Marshall Davis, and that he had a considerable influence on Obama. But we cannot really get a rational explanation of why Obama would cover up the identity of this Stalinist agent.

Q: How do you know for sure Davis was a member of the Communist Party USA?

A: We have several different sources confirming that Frank Marshall Davis was a Communist Party member. We have congressional hearings and investigations. Plus we have those who have written about Davis, including John Edgar Tidwell, who wrote a whole book -- a sympathetic book -- about Davis but discussed his membership in the Communist Party. Davis of course was asked about this when he was called before a Senate committee, but he took the Fifth Amendment rather than discuss it openly. There’s no question that he was a key member of this Moscow-sponsored communist network in Hawaii.

Q: What was the most subversive or most dangerous-to-America thing Davis ever did?

A: Davis was an unrepentant communist. He stayed with the Communist Party even after the Hitler-Stalin pact. That’s why I refer to him as “a Stalinist agent.” Other prominent black Americans who had gotten into the Communist Party had left it. For example, Langston Hughes and Richard Wright got involved in communist activities but then broke with the Communist Party because it had become an apologist for some horrible crimes not only committed by Stalin but by the Soviet system. Yet Frank Marshall Davis stayed with the party and wrote some infamous poems not only defending the Soviet Union but attacking the United States.

Q: Is there anything to lead you to believe that Davis made a concerted effort to indoctrinate Obama?

A: What we know is that Barack Obama’s grandfather introduced Obama to Frank Marshall Davis because Barack Obama needed someone to look up to. Remember, this was a time when Barack Obama’s black father had abandoned his family. Barack Obama’s grandfather thought that Davis would fulfill the role of male role model and mentor -- and that’s the role that he played.

Q: When Barack Obama got to Chicago he came into contact with '60s radicals William Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn. What is most worrisome about their possible influence on Obama?

A: It really begins even before Obama gets to Chicago because according to his book, when he goes to college -- first Occidental College and later Columbia University -- he picks among his friends Marxist professors. Obama himself admits this. He also admits attending socialist conferences. That would suggest the influence that Davis had on Obama extended into his college and university years.

Now when he gets to Chicago, we find that once again he gravitates and comes into the company of the most extreme anti-American elements, including socialists and communists. Keep in mind that the Weather Underground terrorists, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, were communist terrorists. They were not just '60s radicals. These were people who openly supported the communist enemy killing Americans in Vietnam. Some of the members in this group, including Dohrn, had traveled to Havana, Cuba, to get instructions from the communists about how to wage their campaign in the United States.

Q: What was Obama’s relationship with Ayers and Dohrn and how close was it?

A: The big question is whether there is a connection between the communist network in Hawaii that included Frank Marshall Davis and the communist network in Chicago that would also come to include Barack Obama. We know that according to the public evidence that Obama launches his political career in Chicago at the home of Bernardine Dohrn and Bill Ayers. Other people who were there include then-state Sen. Alice Palmer and a Dr. Quentin Young. Those two people are almost as significant as Ayers and Dohrn.

We have two reports that state Sen. Palmer had been involved in a Communist Party front group called the U.S Peace Council and had actually made a trip to the old Soviet Union. Dr. Quentin Young had been accused of involvement and membership in the Communist Party, and he refused to answer as well when he was called before a committee to explain his financial support for radicals who were behind the riots in Chicago at the Democratic National Convention back in 1968. So we have got four controversial people launching Obama’s political career in Chicago who were involved in socialist or communist activities.

Q: You are not making the claim that Obama is a communist or a “Manchurian Candidate”-type communist or anything else?

A: We are only raising the questions that the media will not look into. We think the media should examine both candidates. But in the case of Obama, who has only been a U.S. senator for a few years, there is more of a responsibility to inform the public about where he had come from. Remember, as president, he will be entitled to see all of our state secrets. And yet, as a candidate, he doesn’t have to undergo a background or security check. That’s why we depend on the media really to vet these candidates, so the American people can know who they are voting for.

On the question about Obama being a communist or a Marxist, of course we never came to any conclusions about that or offered any evidence one way or the other; that wasn’t our purpose. But it’s important to note that when Obama did run for the Senate in 2004, his opponent at the time, Alan Keyes, had charged that Obama was a Marxist. Obama dismissed it. He almost laughed it off. But he certainly has in my view the responsibility and obligation to explain these associations and why it is that he lands right in the middle of two different communist networks -- one in Hawaii, where he is growing up, and one in Chicago, where he’s launching his political career.

It could be that this is all a coincidence -- that it’s just accidental that he seems to get right in the middle with associations with these anti-American characters. But then again, maybe it’s not an accident. He has to answer some of these concerns and our media have to begin by subjecting him to the scrutiny that they apply to somebody like McCain and other candidates.

Q: Dana Milbank of The Washington Post covered your press conference and wrote a sarcastic piece that said you were engaging in “guilt by association.” What’s your response to that?

A: You know, I asked G. Gordon Liddy when I did his radio show about some of these issues that we are raising. Liddy of course used to be an FBI agent, and he said the FBI would always examine somebody’s associations when they looked at somebody to determine if they were suitable for federal employment. They would look for contacts with foreign countries, foreign individuals, hostile governments and hostile intelligence services. They would look at the question of whether this individual is really loyal to the United States.

We’re asking some of these questions about Obama, and we will continue to ask them, because people like Milbank -- who may not really be a serious journalist -- clearly are not interested. He had made it clear in previous columns that he is a big Obama supporter and there are many like him in the major media, which made our news briefing even more important. We not only have issued our two reports and put them on our Web site, usasurvival.org, but we will be putting up video of the whole press conference so that people can take a look and make their own conclusions and not have to rely on the media to filter what we said.

Q: If you could get Tim Russert on “Meet the Press” to ask Sen. Obama a question about these early influences, what would it be?

A: I think the big question would be, “Why, Sen. Obama, did you cover up the identity of Frank Marshall Davis in your book?” If this had been an innocent association -- if this had just been some guy that Obama came across and realized, “Well, look, he’s just some kind of crazy communist. And, yeah, I had some meeting with him and he gave me advice on various things. But he didn’t have any impact on me. And I went off to college and it had no lasting effect.” That would be one thing.

But that’s not how Obama handled it. Instead he talks about “Frank” as someone who gave him serious advice, including not to believe in the American way of life and that black people had a right to hate white people. These were things according to Obama that Frank told him. Rather than deal with that kind of advice in his book, and analyze the motivations of Frank and identify him by his full name, Obama covers up his true identity. Why?
---

It's Not Compassion -- It's Wright-Wing Racism
By Michael Reagan
March 20, 2008

Most of the media and their fellow liberals were positively giddy over Barack Obama's speech Tuesday, all but comparing it to the Sermon on the Mount.

I won't deny it was a masterful piece of oratory -- the man can be spellbinding -- but when you stop to consider what Sen. Obama was really doing up there on the podium, invoking the specter of slavery and Jim Crow and the era of "whites only," it becomes clear that it was a con job designed to make the voters as giddy as he knew his worshippers in the submissive media would be.

The speech was meant to be an explanation and expiation of his guilt for his years of remaining mute in the face of the outrageous anti-Americanism spewed by his pastor and bosom buddy, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

Until Tuesday, Barack Obama (you can't use his middle name, which has now become the "H-word," allegedly a code word for anti-Muslim rhetoric) had steadfastly denied he ever heard his friend and pastor make his hateful remarks. In the speech, however, he just kind of mentioned that... well, yes ... he guesses he was aware of the Reverend Wright's offensive rhetoric after all. Mea Minima Culpa.

He then launched into a defense of his friendship with the man he credited for bringing him to Christianity, and helping to form his social and political philosophy and set him on the path to a life of public service. Admirably, while denouncing Wright's extremism, he refused to denounce the man himself.

Nobody expected him to declare Wright anathema and cast him into the outer darkness where there is weeping and wailing and the gnashing of teeth -- one simply doesn't do to that sort of thing to a longtime friend, benefactor and mentor even if he has been shown to have slipped the rails time after time.

What was not expected was Barack H. Obama's use of a litany of America's past racist offenses to justify not only Wright's blatant hatred of white America but his suggestion that it was a sentiment shared by most African Americans. And that is simply not true.

Nor was it true, as Obama charged, that the Reagan coalition was created out of white resentment for affirmative action or forced busing.

He charged that "anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime... talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism."

Poppycock! These are not only outright falsehoods, but echoes of what Obama learned at the feet of Jeremiah Wright and now preaches as his own beliefs. He learned his lessons well.

When he suggested that my father's coalition was based on anger over affirmative action and welfare he was peddling a blatant falsehood as egregious in its falsity as Wright's charge that whites created AIDS to wipe out the black population.

Everything Obama said was directed at suggesting that while Rev. Wright should not have used such inflammatory language, he was somehow justified because of America's white racism.

Try as he might, Barack Obama cannot claim the innocence of a lamb in his long years of worshipful association with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. He was either fully aware of the seething racial hatred that motivated Wright, or something of a blithering idiot who can't spot a racist hater when he spends years genuflecting at his feet.

Barack Obama is not an idiot. He is a brilliant orator who exudes charm and arouses near-worship from his host of giddy, hypnotized supporters. He is also a committed socialist and a talented salesman for his brand of Marxist snake oil.

Beware of camels bearing gifts, and politicians promising utopia.

Mike Reagan, the elder son of the late President Ronald Reagan, is heard on more than 200 talk-radio stations nationally as part of the Radio America Network. Look for Mike's newest book, "Twice Adopted."
---

The Speech That Revealed So Much
by Bobby Eberle

It was touted as a "major" speech. Facing criticism over anti-American hate speech from his pastor of twenty years, Barack Obama was forced to the podium to address the comments of Jeremiah Wright. Obama has built his campaign around a message of "coming together" and "moving beyond race." However, his speech did nothing to show that he, the candidate of change, has done any moving at all. In fact, despite specific words in which he denounced some of Wright's comments, the overall message of his speech was that Wright's comments were OK and that we just need to "understand" why he made them. Sorry Barack... you had your chance to move "beyond race," and you blew it.

On many occasions, I have written about race in America. (See A Personal Look at Racial Preferences and Diversity Essay" is Not the Answer to Color Blind Admissions). Those on the liberal left have done more to perpetuate strife between the races than they will ever admit... from racial preferences to "hate" crimes laws, the dream of a color-blind society has been swept away in favor of "give me something just because I'm black" mentality.

Obama's pastor has taken to the pulpit on many occasions and delivered, not a Christian message of "love thy neighbor," but a militant political message of hate. By now, you have likely seen the videos or read the transcripts. Comments such as "The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lies." and others such as "We nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye." are common place in Wright's rants.

However, what did Obama say about them in Tuesday's "major" speech? First, he made the following comments regarding Rev. Wright, a person Obama now refers to as his "former pastor":

On one end of the spectrum, we've heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it's based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other end, we've heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.

Obama then added, "I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy." Rather than strongly come out in his "major" speech and draw a clear line in the sand between himself and Rev. Wright, Obama draped his denunciation around the comments made by others in an attempt to make the Wright comments on par with other statements of race. Nice try, but you failed Senator. Someone's (Geraldine Ferraro) personal comments on whether race had anything to do with your rapid rise in politics is completely different than a pastor's anti-American, anti-white, anti-Jewish, non-Christian rants at the pulpit. Obama should have nothing to do with this person, but he is so political that he is not willing to risk his "ghetto" credentials to say what's right.

Instead of saying that he will not be associated with a church or person who promotes such anti-American views, Obama spent most of the speech trying to defend Rev. Wright. He mentioned all the good things that Wright has done. He then went on to say:

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

Those are the comments that really made ME cringe. Those statements and others in his speech were not only offensive to me, but were so purely political. Time after time he tried to equate Wright to someone else or to someone else's actions to lessen the effect or to diminish the significance. Wright's comments needed to be addressed for what they are, but instead, Obama embraced Wright as a symbol of the "black community." In addition, equating Wright's comments delivered to a modern-day audience with those of his 86-year-old grandmother is insulting. His grandmother came from a different era and was not at the pulpit or on video delivering hate speech.

Obama goes on to explain the historical injustices perpetrated against blacks. He then adds:

This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. ... This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. What's remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.

Obama then said, "In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community." He goes on to give examples, but this is where his failure is complete. Yes, each racial culture in America has members who are angry, who feel cheated by "the man." And in the segments of angry people arise leaders to fan the flames of anger. However, those extremist leaders are denouncing by mainstream America, not embraced. Political leaders do not flock to side of David Duke, but rather they denounce his words and actions, and they separate themselves from everything Duke stands for.

What did Obama do regarding Wright? Well, Obama "can no more disown him" than he can "disown the black community." Wright may have grown up during racially charged times in America, but he is speaking to impressionable youngsters of the present. His words do nothing more than promote racial division.

Yet, we must "come together" and work for a color-blind society. We would be a better America for it. However, those who think Obama is the new leader of that movement need only listen to Tuesday's speech. Obama failed to be anything more than a politician trying to play the race card.

One final note... The really frustrating part of the speech, other than the words themselves, was some of the analysis that followed. All of the analysts on FOX News seemed to be like deer caught in the headlights of a "racial police" Hummer. They seemed afraid to say anything that could be perceived as offensive. HELLO!!!! The speech was so blatantly political and so easy to dissect and yet they let it pass. Obama made excuses for Wright and continued to play the race card. Yet he got a pass. That is pathetic.


Obama's Church of Slurs
By Brent Bozell III

It's Damage Control Time for the liberal press. Count New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof as one in the media masses who have been outraged, just outraged, at the supposed conservative bigotry against Barack Obama. This "most monstrous bigotry" isn't just about race but also religion. Stating his middle name and whispering on the Internet that he's a Muslim "are the religious equivalent of racial slurs."

Kristof concluded his March 9 column by quoting Martin Luther: "I'd rather be ruled by a wise Turk than a foolish Christian."

Through months of outrage over Obama the Supposed Muslim, reporters have largely ignored the church Obama attends in Chicago. The Trinity United Church of Christ claims to be "unashamedly black and unapologetically Christian." It proclaims it's a church of "an African people, who remain 'true to our native land,' the mother continent, the cradle of civilization." You can't tell conservatives that if their church said it was "a European people," committed to the European culture and motherland, that reporters wouldn't smell white supremacy between the lines.

Then there is Obama's minister, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who in 2007 offered the "Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award" to a man who "truly epitomized greatness," anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan, head of the Nation of Islam. Is Nicholas Kristof wanting us to believe that offering awards to Farrakhan is simply the act of a "foolish Christian"? It gives an entirely new meaning to Kristof's headline, "Obama and the Bigots."

Now some very disturbing Jeremiah Wright sermons are bubbling up, sermons where he screams until he's hoarse against America, so angry he can't resist bursting with profanity from the pulpit. In 2003, he built a grand government conspiracy against blacks: "The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strikes law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God d--- America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people. God d--- America for treating our citizens as less than human. God d--- America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."

Five days after 9/11, Rev. Wright was condemning America as bringing on the al-Qaeda attacks with our own terrorism: "We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye," he yelled. "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."

Are we to believe that on the first Sunday after 9/11 -- when many Americans crowded into churches looking to mourn, looking for answers, looking for community -- that Barack Obama decided to skip church?

ABC's Brian Ross found these words and then noted Obama has professed, "I don't think my church is actually particularly controversial." He said Rev. Wright "is like an old uncle who says things I don't always agree with," telling a Jewish group that everyone has someone like that in their family.

How in the world can the same media that roundly condemned George W. Bush in 2000 because he "stood uncritically" at Bob Jones University now accept this crazy-uncle defense? ABC's George Stephanopoulos suggested Bush's standard stump speech there made him a "Kamikaze conservative." That was a single moment on Bush's campaign schedule. Barack Obama's been attending his crazy uncle's church for 20 years; that crazy uncle married him and baptized his children, too.

Once these statements hit the airwaves, Obama repudiated them but then suggested that those mean-spirited conservatives were at it again. "I noticed over the last several weeks that the forces of division have started to raise their ugly heads again," Obama declared. But the "forces of division" were right there within his campaign -- until Obama expelled his minister from his African American religious leadership team.

Barack Obama looks phony either way. Either he missed all of these sermons, meaning his "devout Christian" talk on CBS doesn't match his church attendance record, or he sincerely thinks that hateful, race-baiting, America-bashing sermons are part of a pleasant Sunday worship experience. The press has an obligation to pursue this.

If Obama really meant any of this rhetoric about healing racial divisions -- in any of his speeches over many months of campaigning -- he would have quit his hate-spewing minister and his Church of Slurs a long time ago. If the media ever meant to be fair and balanced instead of a real-life comedy sketch full of slavish Obama myth-builders, they would have found this story a long time ago.


The Problem With Obama's -- Not Wright's -- Vision
By Terence Jeffrey

The greatest barrier to Barack Obama becoming a leader who truly advances the cause of justice is not found in the racially polarizing and unpatriotic comments of his longtime pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, but in Obama's own vision of civil rights, which cannot be reconciled with the vision Martin Luther King Jr. used to achieve victory for the civil rights movement.

King's vision was as simple as it was unifying: An unjust law is a law that is not consistent with the natural law and the law of God.

The question King put to Americans was: Is racial discrimination consistent with the natural law and the law of God? The question had only one answer: No.

The reason Americans answered correctly is perhaps best explained by St. Paul, who said in his letter to the Romans that all people have the natural law "written on their hearts."

Whether they like it or not, human beings know the basic rules of right and wrong. Great leaders -- like Martin Luther King Jr. -- achieve positive change by forcing people to confront injustice and appealing to what is already written in their hearts to remedy that injustice.

Obama cannot unabashedly embrace this simple vision for a simple reason: He advocates policies that not only violate the natural law, but do so egregiously because they especially victimize children, who because of their vulnerability especially deserve society's protection.

These policies are legalized abortion, which allows unborn children to be killed, and granting same-sex unions the same legal status as marriage, including the "right" to adopt children, which results in children being denied either a mother or a father by the deliberate policy of the state.

Martin Luther King Jr.'s vision derived its political force from at least three factors: It was rooted in a moral tradition that transcends denominational divisions, it was exactly the same vision articulated in the Declaration of Independence, and it was true.

King, an African American Baptist clergyman, explained his vision in the Letter from Birmingham Jail, where he referenced not only the Declaration of Independence, which was drafted by a Deist, but also the writings of two Catholic saints, one of whom died in 430, the other in 1274.

"I would agree with St. Augustine that 'an unjust law is no law at all,'" wrote King. "Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a manmade code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law."

This is precisely what the Founding Fathers were saying when they cited "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" and insisted that all men "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights."

Before the sayings of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright created a national controversy last week, Obama had tipped his hand on where he stood relevant to the Founders' and King's vision of justice.

At a Sunday morning event in Nelsonville, Ohio, earlier this month, for example, he explained why he favors legalized abortion.

He implicitly conceded there is something wrong with abortion, which he said has "a real moral element." But, he concluded, "in the end I think women, in consultation with their pastors, and their doctors, and their family, are in a better position to make these decisions than some bureaucrat in Washington."

That is like saying segregation had a "real moral element" but in end should have been left up to states, local communities and businesses.

On Feb. 28, Obama released an open letter to the "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender" community. "I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act," he said. That would mean states would not be protected from having to recognize same-sex marriages codified in Massachusetts or elsewhere.

"As your president," he said, "I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws."

The people who would be bullied by this policy are children who would be thrown -- by edict of the government -- into same-sex unions in which nature itself would never have placed them.

No matter how persistently Obama invokes the rhetoric of national unity and reconciliation, the heart of the country will rebel against the very real consequence that his policies will harm the most vulnerable Americans of all.


Guilting America to the White House
By Kathleen Parker

Barack Obama is a magician.

He could tell me it's raining on a sunny day, and I'd grab an umbrella. He could tell me the moon is the sun, and I'd reach for my shades.

He could even tell me that the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's rants god-damning America and blaming AIDS on a white-man conspiracy were wrong but essentially justified by a racist past ... and I'd have to slap myself before I saddled up a polka-dotted horse and galloped down the Yellow Brick Road.

Obama's speech Tuesday from Philadelphia -- the city of brotherly love -- was eloquent, inspiring and will be read in schools for generations. But between the lines of change and reconciliation were a discomfiting hint of buried fury, a sense of racial righteousness and a tacit approval attached to his expressed disapproval of Wright's now-famous raves that will leave many Americans wondering: Is he with us? Or is he against us?

In a flourish of brilliance, Obama framed his Rev. Wright problem in the context of America's unfinished work toward "a more perfect union," as envisioned by the nation's forefathers. It isn't that Wright is off-the-wall, we were to infer. It is that our country is falling short of its promise.

Which isn't completely false, of course, but not completely true, either. America isn't finished with its business of equality -- and race does still bedevil us -- but our progress since the twin blights of slavery and Jim Crow isn't insignificant.

Ever conscious of his pledge to unity, Obama acknowledged as much, saying that Wright wasn't wrong to talk about racism -- even if it was one-sided. He was wrong to speak "as if our society was static: as if no progress has been made."

But what he didn't acknowledge is that Wright is completely off-the-wall, even if the snippets we've seen are only a fraction of his life's work. Give Wright credit for helping the unfortunate and for leading Obama to his faith. But those accomplishments don't quite neutralize the anti-white message of the man Obama selected as his spiritual mentor.

Like the best politicians, Obama senses our restlessness. One of his many gifts is his ability to lull people with flawless logic and uplifting rhetoric.

Of course he disagrees with some of Wright's controversial statements -- just as most people disagree with some of what their pastors and rabbis say. We're yum-yumming that idea, thinking "Yeah, that's right," when our inner reality-checker kicks in and kills the buzz.

Then we remember that advancing lies and conspiracy theories that pit black against white is not, in fact, defensible. And that what many find offensive in Wright's statements is not comparable to the minor differences they likely have with their own pastors and rabbis.

The question still remains: Why did Obama, future author of racial harmony, stay with a preacher whose black nationalist leanings were no secret?

Obama said he could no more denounce Wright, who is "like family," than he could denounce the black community -- or his white grandmother. Instead, he praised Wright's larger presence and purpose in the black community as outweighing the YouTube replays of a profane man on the verge of paranoiac hysteria.

Moreover, the minister whom Obama first got to know 20 years ago spoke of "our obligations to love one another." But given Wright's racist eruptions, white Americans are justified in wondering whether those charitable thoughts also apply to them.

Finally, Obama suggested that if Wright is occasionally angry, he has a right to be, as does the community he serves. And if white Americans are startled to witness that anger, they haven't been paying attention.

That was a risky message, but one that counted on a reliable well of white guilt. Then Obama took another pre-emptive gamble and implored Americans to look at Wright's anger, rather than avert their gaze, and to embrace that anger as a prompt to change.

In other words, he artfully shifted focus from his still-perplexing relationship with Wright to our own dark hearts. The choice is ours, he said:

We can focus on one ol' crazy uncle who sometimes gets a little carried away -- and in so doing, destroy the audacity of hope -- or, we can keep our nation's date with destiny, fulfill the dream imagined 221 years ago to form a more perfect union -- and elect Barack Obama.

Anyone who fails to embrace the only appealing option -- eschewing cheap spectacle for a dance with destiny to the tune of hope -- begins to feel a little woozy and, oddly, un-American.

Abracadabra.


The Barack Obama Double Standard
By Doug Patton
March 17, 2008

Imagine in 1999, that a videotape had come to light showing the pastor of Texas Gov. George W. Bush's church making vicious, hateful comments about America and cruel, racist statements about Americans of color.

Suppose this preacher had given a lifetime achievement award to former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke, and had traveled to Europe with Duke to meet with neo-Nazi terrorists.

Now try to envision that the candidate's family had attended this church for more than twenty years, that George and Laura Bush had been married there, by this pastor, and that the Bush daughters had been baptized by him.

Picture George Bush titling his autobiography after a phrase in one of this minister's sermons, writing that the man was his mentor, and then putting him on the presidential campaign staff as a trusted advisor and confidant.

Say it came to light that for several years George W. Bush had been friends with Eric Rudolph, the notorious Olympic Park bomber and anti-abortion terrorist. Furthermore, let's suppose that Bush had remained friends with Rudolph over the years and still considered him a colleague today.

Now imagine Laura Bush, on the campaign trail for her husband, telling supporters and the national media that America is "mean" and that for the first time in her adult life she was proud of her country.

Is there a doubt that Republican officeholders would have run from the Bush campaign like rats from a burning barn, that he would have become the political leper of the 2000 campaign? And what about the media? They virtually crucified candidate Bush that year for daring to give a speech at Bob Jones University, which had once banned interracial dating. I cannot imagine the field day they would have had with something like this.

And yet excuses are made for Barack Obama, who now finds himself in exactly this situation. Obama's pastor of more than two decades - the man who married Barack and Michelle Obama, who christened their daughters, who inspired the title of the candidate's book, "The Audacity of Hope," - is now at the center of a storm that would have destroyed the candidacy of any Republican the day the story broke.

Rev. Jeremiah Wright, pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago for the last 36 years, has been caught on tape denouncing the United States and the white race in terms that should shock and disgust every thinking American. Wright and the church swear allegiance to the "mother country" - Africa. (Presumably this includes the Obama family.)

Rather than trying to infuse his congregation with hope and encouragement, Wright poisons them with vitriol about how the U.S. government has tried to commit genocide against the black community using drugs and the AIDS virus as weapons of choice.

"Don't say God bless America," Wright screams in one sermon. "God damn America!"

Wright, representing the church, bestowed a lifetime achievement award on Louis Farrakhan, the racist leader of the Nation of Islam. In the 1980s, Wright traveled to Libya with Farrakhan to meet with Muammar Gaddafi.

If Barack Obama has not been paying attention in church, it is apparent that his wife, Michelle, has. Campaigning for her husband recently, she said that for the first time in her adult life, she is finally proud of her country. In a separate speech, she said America is "a mean country."

Obama is friends with William Ayers, an admitted domestic terrorist with the Weather Underground, which declared war on the United States and claimed responsibility for bombing several government buildings, including the Pentagon and the State Department building, in the 1970s. In an interview with The New York Times, ironically published on the morning of September 11, 2001, Ayers was quoted as saying, "I don't regret setting bombs; I feel we didn't do enough."

Now a tenured professor at the University of Chicago (only in America!), Ayers met Barack Obama in the 1990s. They have remained friends ever since.

We are judged not just by our words, but by the company we keep. The litmus test should not be whether or not everyone a candidate knows is ideal. That is an impossible standard. The true measure of a man is in his ability to choose friends with which he can be proud to stand shoulder to shoulder, not those about whom he must equivocate and for whom he must apologize.


Obama's Communist Mentor
By Cliff Kincaid

In his biography of Barack Obama, David Mendell writes about Obama's life as a "secret smoker" and how he "went to great lengths to conceal the habit"  -- but what about Obama's secret political life? It turns out that Obama's childhood mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, was a communist.

In his books, Obama admits attending "socialist conferences" and coming into contact with Marxist literature. But he ridicules the charge of being a "hard-core academic Marxist," which was made by his colorful and outspoken 2004 U.S. Senate opponent, Republican Alan Keyes. However, through Frank Marshall Davis, Obama had an admitted relationship with someone who was publicly identified as a member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA). The record shows that Obama was in Hawaii from 1971-1979, where, at some point in time, he developed a close relationship, almost like a son, with Davis, listening to his "poetry" and getting advice on his career path. But Obama, in his book, Dreams From My Father, refers to him repeatedly as just "Frank."

The reason is apparent: Davis was a known communist who belonged to a party subservient to the Soviet Union. In fact, the 1951 report of the Commission on Subversive Activities to the Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii identified him as a CPUSA member. What's more, anti-communist congressional committees, including the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), accused Davis of involvement in several communist-front organizations.

Trevor Loudon, (web site) a New Zealand-based libertarian activist, researcher and blogger, noted evidence that "Frank" was Frank Marshall Davis in a posting (web site) in March of 2007.

Obama's communist connection adds to mounting public concern about a candidate who has come out of virtually nowhere, with a brief U.S. Senate legislative record, to become the Democratic Party frontrunner for the U.S. presidency. In the latest Real Clear Politics poll average, (web site) Obama beats Republican John McCain by almost four percentage points.

AIM recently disclosed (web site) that Obama has well-documented socialist connections, which help explain why he sponsored a "Global Poverty Act" (web site) designed to send hundreds of billions of dollars of U.S. foreign aid to the rest of the world, in order to meet U.N. demands. The bill has passed the House and a Senate committee, and awaits full Senate action.

But the Communist Party connection through Davis is even more ominous. Decades ago, the CPUSA had tens of thousands of members, some of them covert agents who had penetrated the U.S. Government. It received secret subsidies from the old Soviet Union.

You won't find any of this discussed in the David Mendell book, Obama: From Promise to Power. It is typical of the superficial biographies of Obama now on the market. Secret smoking seems to be Obama's most controversial activity. At best, Mendell and the liberal media describe Obama as "left-leaning."

But you will find it briefly discussed, sort of, in Obama's own book, Dreams From My Father. He writes about "a poet named Frank," who visited them in Hawaii, read poetry, and was full of "hard-earned knowledge" and advice. Who was Frank? Obama only says that he had "some modest notoriety once," was "a contemporary of Richard Wright and Langston Hughes during his years in Chicago..." but was now "pushing eighty." He writes about "Frank and his old Black Power dashiki self" giving him advice before he left for Occidental College in 1979 at the age of 18.

This "Frank" is none other than Frank Marshall Davis, the black communist writer now considered by some to be in the same category of prominence as Maya Angelou and Alice Walker. In the summer/fall 2003 issue (web site) of African American Review, James A. Miller of George Washington University reviews a book by John Edgar Tidwell, a professor at the University of Kansas, about Davis's career, and notes, "In Davis's case, his political commitments led him to join the American Communist Party during the middle of World War II - even though he never publicly admitted his Party membership." Tidwell is an expert on the life and writings of Davis.

Is it possible that Obama did not know who Davis was when he wrote his book, Dreams From My Father, first published in 1995? That's not plausible since Obama refers to him as a contemporary of Richard Wright and Langston Hughes and says he saw a book of his black poetry.

The communists knew who "Frank" was, and they know who Obama is. In fact, one academic who travels in communist circles understands the significance of the Davis-Obama relationship.

Professor Gerald Horne, a contributing editor of the Communist Party journal Political Affairs, talked about it during a speech last March at the reception of the Communist Party USA archives at the Tamiment Library at New York University. The remarks are posted (web site) online under the headline, "Rethinking the History and Future of the Communist Party."

Horne, a history professor at the University of Houston, noted that Davis, who moved to Honolulu from Kansas in 1948 "at the suggestion of his good friend Paul Robeson," came into contact with Barack Obama and his family and became the young man's mentor, influencing Obama's sense of identity and career moves. Robeson, of course, was the well-known black actor and singer who served as a member of the CPUSA and apologist for the old Soviet Union. Davis had known Robeson from his time in Chicago.

As Horne describes it, Davis "befriended" a "Euro-American family" that had "migrated to Honolulu from Kansas and a young woman from this family eventually had a child with a young student from Kenya East Africa who goes by the name of Barack Obama, who retracing the steps of Davis eventually decamped to Chicago."

It was in Chicago that Obama became a "community organizer" and came into contact with more far-left political forces, including the Democratic Socialists of America, which maintains close ties to European socialist groups and parties through the Socialist International (SI), and two former members of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), William Ayers and Carl Davidson.

The SDS laid siege to college campuses across America in the 1960s, mostly in order to protest the Vietnam War, and spawned the terrorist Weather Underground organization. Ayers was a member of the terrorist group and turned himself in to authorities in 1981. He is now a college professor and served with Obama on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago. Davidson is now a figure in the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, an offshoot of the old Moscow-controlled CPUSA, and helped organize the 2002 rally where Obama came out against the Iraq War.

Both communism and socialism trace their roots to Karl Marx, co-author of the Communist Manifesto, who endorsed the first meeting of the Socialist International, then called the "First International." According to Pierre Mauroy, president of the SI from 1992-1996, "It was he [Marx] who formally launched it, gave the inaugural address and devised its structure..."

Apparently unaware that Davis had been publicly named as a CPUSA member, Horne said only that Davis "was certainly in the orbit of the CP [Communist Party]--if not a member..."

In addition to Tidwell's book, Black Moods: Collected Poems of Frank Marshall Davis, confirming Davis's Communist Party membership, another book, The New Red Negro: The Literary Left and African American Poetry, 1930-1946, names Davis as one of several black poets who continued to publish in CPUSA-supported publications after the 1939 Hitler-Stalin non-aggression pact. The author, James Edward Smethurst, associate professor of Afro-American studies at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, says that Davis, however, would later claim that he was "deeply troubled" by the pact.

While blacks such as Richard Wright left the CPUSA, it is not clear if or when Davis ever left the party.

However, Obama writes in Dreams from My Father that he saw "Frank" only a few days before he left Hawaii for college, and that Davis seemed just as radical as ever. Davis called college "An advanced degree in compromise" and warned Obama not to forget his "people" and not to "start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that shit." Davis also complained about foot problems, the result of "trying to force African feet into European shoes," Obama wrote.

For his part, Horne says that Obama's giving of credit to Davis will be important in history. "At some point in the future, a teacher will add to her syllabus Barack's memoir and instruct her students to read it alongside Frank Marshall Davis' equally affecting memoir, Living the Blues and when that day comes, I'm sure a future student will not only examine critically the Frankenstein monsters that US imperialism created in order to subdue Communist parties but will also be moved to come to this historic and wonderful archive in order to gain insight on what has befallen this complex and intriguing planet on which we reside," he said.

Dr. Kathryn Takara, a professor of Interdisciplinary Studies at the University of Hawaii at Manoa who also confirms that Davis is the "Frank" in Obama's book, did her dissertation on Davis and spent much time with him between 1972 until he passed away in 1987.

In an analysis (web site) posted online, she notes that Davis, who was a columnist for the Honolulu Record, brought "an acute sense of race relations and class struggle throughout America and the world" and that he openly discussed subjects such as American imperialism, colonialism and exploitation. She described him as a "socialist realist" who attacked the work of the House Un-American Activities Committee.

Davis, in his own writings, had said that Robeson and Harry Bridges, the head of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) and a secret member of the CPUSA, had suggested that he take a job as a columnist with the Honolulu Record "and see if I could do something for them." The ILWU was organizing workers there and Robeson's contacts were "passed on" to Davis, Takara writes.

Takara says that Davis "espoused freedom, radicalism, solidarity, labor unions, due process, peace, affirmative action, civil rights, Negro History week, and true Democracy to fight imperialism, colonialism, and white supremacy. He urged coalition politics."

Is "coalition politics" at work in Obama's rise to power?

Trevor Loudon, the New Zealand-based blogger who has been analyzing the political forces behind Obama and specializes in studying the impact of Marxist and leftist political organizations, notes that Frank Chapman, a CPUSA supporter, has written a letter to the party newspaper hailing the Illinois senator's victory in the Iowa caucuses.

"Obama's victory was more than a progressive move; it was a dialectical leap ushering in a qualitatively new era of struggle," Chapman wrote. (web site) "Marx once compared revolutionary struggle with the work of the mole, who sometimes burrows so far beneath the ground that he leaves no trace of his movement on the surface. This is the old revolutionary 'mole,' not only showing his traces on the surface but also breaking through."

Let's challenge the liberal media to report on this. Will they have the honesty and integrity to do so?
---

For more information, see:

Marxism, Fascism, Nazism explained and compared
http://www.cesj.org/thirdway/comparison3rdway.htm
http://www.cesj.org/thirdway/almostcapitalist.htm
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/27/075.html
http://econ161.berkeley.edu/TCEH/Slouch_Alternatives12.html

The difference between a Democracy and a Republic
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Barracks/1646/demvsrep.html

Republic? Democracy? What's the Difference?
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3388

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1276845/posts
http://www.devvy.com/pdf/larosa/larosa_democracy_or_republic.pdf

A Republic, Not a Democracy
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2000/tst121200.htm

Sorry, Mr. Franklin, “We’re All Democrats Now”
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr012903.htm

Democracy Is Not Freedom
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul233.html
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/161/what-does-freedom-really-mean/
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/t/thomas_jefferson.html


If We Subsidize Them...
The Coming Econmic Collapse of America
by Ron Paul

For decades we have welcomed new immigrants to our American "melting pot".  We respect those who come here peacefully to pursue their American Dream.  But Americans have noticed lately that modern problems associated with illegal immigration are at a crisis point.  Taxpayers are now suffering the consequences.

Costs of social services for the estimated 21 million illegal immigrants in this country are approaching $400 billion.  We educate 4.2 million children of illegals at a cost of $13.8 billion.  There have been almost 2 million anchor babies born in this country since 2002, with labor and delivery costs of between $3 and 6 billion.  There are currently 360,000 illegals in our prisons and we have spent $1.4 billion to incarcerate them since 2001.  In Prince William County near DC, ICE can't deport criminal illegals fast enough and has actually asked its local jails to slow down on referring them.  Jurisdiction over illegal immigration lies at the federal level, yet many municipalities are struggling with the compounding problems of mandated costs and tied hands.  My office has heard from at least one sheriff in my district considering seeking compensation from the Federal government for the cost of so many illegal immigrant inmates that wouldn't be here if the Federal government was doing its job and protecting our borders.  The problems are widespread.

One thing is certain:  If we subsidize them, they will come.  We have rolled out the social services red carpet, so it is no surprise that many from other countries are eager to come take advantage of our very generous system.

We must return to the American principle of personal responsibility.  We must expect those who come here to take care of themselves and respect our laws.  Not only is this the right thing to do for our overtaxed citizens, but we simply have no choice.  We can't afford these policies anymore.  Since we are $60 trillion in debt, there should be no taxpayer-paid benefits for non-citizens.  My bill, the Social Security for American Citizens Only Act, stops non-citizens from collecting Social Security Benefits.  This bill, by the way, picked up three new cosponsors this week and is gaining momentum.   Also, we should not be awarding automatic citizenship to children born here minutes after their mothers illegally cross the border.  It just doesn't make sense.  The practice of birthright citizenship is an aberration of the original intent of the 14th amendment, the purpose of which was never to allow lawbreakers to bleed taxpayers of welfare benefits.  I have introduced HJ Res 46 to address this loophole.  Other Western countries such as Australia , France , and England have stopped birth-right citizenship.  It is only reasonable that we do the same.  We must also empower local and state officials to deal with problems the Federal government can't or won't address.  Actions like this are a matter of national security at this point.

Illegal immigration is draining and frustrating the American taxpayer.  I will continue to work for a solution that does not reward those who break our laws.


Change Obama can believe in: Socialism?
By Cliff Kincaid, Accuracy in Media

Campaign workers for Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama are under fire for displaying a flag featuring communist hero Che Guevara.

But Obama has his own controversial connections. He is, in fact, an associate of a Chicago-based socialist group with ties to the Socialist International, access to millions of labor union dollars and connections to expert political consultants, including a convicted swindler.

Obama’s socialist backing goes back at least to 1996, when he received the endorsement of the Chicago branch of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) for an Illinois state senate seat. Later, the Chicago DSA newsletter reported that Obama, as a state senator, showed up to eulogize Saul Mendelson, one of the “champions” of “Chicago’s democratic left” and a long-time socialist activist. Obama’s stint as a “community organizer” in Chicago has gotten some attention, but his relationship with the DSA socialists, who groomed and backed him, has been generally ignored.

Blogger Steve Bartin, who has been following Obama’s career and involvement with the Chicago socialists, has uncovered a fascinating video showing Obama campaigning for openly socialist Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Interestingly, Sanders, who won his seat in 2006, called Obama “one of the great leaders of the United States Senate,” even though Obama had only been in the body for about two years. In 2007, the National Journal said that Obama had established himself as “the most liberal Senator.” More liberal than Sanders? That is quite a feat. Does this make Obama a socialist, too?

DSA describes itself as the largest socialist organization in the United States and the principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International. The Socialist International (SI) has what is called “consultative status” with the United Nations. In other words, it works hand-in-glove with the world body.

The international connection is important and significant because an Obama bill, “The Global Poverty Act,” has just been rushed through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, with the assistance of Democratic Senator Joe Biden, the chairman, and Republican Senator Richard Lugar. The legislation (S.2433) commits the U.S. to spending hundreds of billions of dollars more in foreign aid on the rest of the world, in order to comply with the “Millennium Goals” established by the United Nations. Conservative members of the committee were largely caught off-guard by the move to pass the Obama bill but are putting a “hold” on it, in order to try to prevent the legislation, which also quickly passed the House, from being quickly brought up for a full Senate vote. But observers think that Senate Democrats may try to pass it quickly anyway, in order to give Obama a precious legislative “victory” that he could run on.

Another group associated with the SI is the Party of European Socialists (PES), which heard from Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, back in 2006. Dean’s speech is posted on the official Democratic Party website, although the European socialist parties are referred to as “progressive.” Democrats, Dean said, want to be “good citizens of the world community.” He spoke at a session on “Global Challenges for Progressive Politics.”

Following up, in April 2007, PES President Poul Nyrup Rasmussen reported that European socialists held a meeting “in the Democrats HQ in Washington,” met with officials of the party and Democratic members of Congress, and agreed that “PES activist groups” in various U.S. cities would start working together. The photos of the trip show Rasmussen meeting with such figures as Senator Ben Cardin, Senator Bernie Sanders, officials of the Brookings Institution, Howard Dean, and AFL-CIO President John W. Sweeney, a member of the DSA. The Brookings Institution is headed by former Clinton State Department official Strobe Talbott, a proponent of world government who was recently identified in the book Comrade J as having been a pawn of the Russian intelligence service.

The socialist connections of Obama and the Democratic Party have certainly not been featured in the Washington Post columns of Harold Meyerson, who happens not only to be a member but a vice-chair of the DSA. Meyerson, the subject of our 2005 column, “A Socialist at the Washington Post,” has praised convicted inside-trader George Soros for manipulating campaign finance laws to benefit the far-left elements of the Democratic Party. Obama’s success in the Democratic presidential primaries and caucuses is further evidence of Soros’s success. Indeed, Soros has financially contributed to the Obama campaign.

It is not surprising that the Chicago Democrat, Rep. Jan Schakowsky, has endorsed Obama. Schakowsky, who endorsed Howard Dean for president in 2004, was honored in 2000 at a dinner sponsored by the Chicago chapter of the DSA. Her husband, Robert Creamer, emerged from federal prison in November 2006 after serving five months for financial crimes. He pleaded guilty to ripping off financial institutions while running a non-profit group. Before he was convicted but under indictment, Creamer was hired by the Soros-funded Open Society Policy Center to sabotage John Bolton’s nomination as Ambassador to the U.N.

After his release from prison, Creamer released a book, Listen to Your Mother: Stand up Straight: How Progressives Can Win, described by one blogger as the book that was “penned in the pen.” A blurb for the book declares, “Some people think that in order to win, Democrats need to move to the political center by adopting conservative values and splitting the difference between progressive and conservative positions. History shows they are wrong. To win the next election and to win in the long term, we need to redefine the political center.”

In addition to writing the book, Creamer is back in business, running his firm, Strategic Consulting Group, and advertising himself as “a consultant to the campaigns to end the war in Iraq, pass universal health care, change America’s budget priorities and enact comprehensive immigration reform.” His clients have included the AFL-CIO and MoveOn.org. In fact, his client list is a virtual who’s who of the Democratic Party, organized labor, and Democratic Party constituency groups.

Creamer’s list of testimonials comes from such figures as Democratic Senators Dick Durbin (Ill.) and Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Harold Meyerson, MoveOn.org founder Wes Boyd, and David Axelrod, a “Democratic political consultant.” Axelrod, of course, is much more than just a “Democratic political consultant.” He helped State Senator Barack Obama win his U.S. Senate seat in 2004 and currently serves as strategist and media advisor to Obama’s presidential campaign.

Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media appeared on the Glenn Beck show Thursday and detailed Obama's extreme Left connections. So far he's been mouthing celestial platitudes about "change," "hope," etc. As Rush has said regarding his oratory skills, "No one says 'nothing' better." But this vapid oratory conceals a serious threat to America. The only thing worse than having barely any experience at all is having little experience that's all BAD.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1970724/posts


Global Poverty Act = Socialist Global Tax

"The Global Poverty Act:

* Declares it official U.S. policy to promote the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of cutting extreme global poverty in half by 2015 -- by increasing taxes and poverty in the U.S.!

* Requires the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to carry out that policy.

* Includes guidelines for what the strategy should include - from aid, trade, and debt relief, to working with the international community, businesses and NGOs, to ensuring environmental sustainability.

* Requires that the President's strategy include specific and measurable goals, efforts to be undertaken, benchmarks, and timetables.

* Requires the President to report back to Congress on progress made in the implementation of the global poverty strategy."

According to the above source, these are the contents of the Global Poverty Act, sponsored by Barack Obama. The reason this is a conspiracy is that 1) it's been very hard to find any news on this at all from either AP or Reuters or whatever mainstream news source you prefer. All the news about it is on blogs supporting the bill. But the website belonging to Glenn Beck includes the real meat of Senate bill 2433. And 2) what's being left out of this seemingly benign news article is what is included in Beck's coverage:

The Act will commit the US to increasing our taxes significantly (in addition to raises to keep Social Security from going under, and for social services for illegal immigrants) and paying $845 Billion in addition to what is already being spent on foreign aid (that's .7% of the GDP)

The goals of the Act will be declared by the United Nations, not the United States.

The declaration commits the US to ban small arms and weapons, ratify a series of treaties including the International Criminal Court treaty, the Kyoto protocol, and the Convention on Biological Diversity.

This legislation was pushed through the house because no one read it and is now being pushed through the Senate and no one is talking about it. This is the type of thing that we're all afraid of. Is this the direction you want the US to go in? If it is, then call it what it truly is - not Liberalism, but SOCIALISM/Marxism, and an attempt to fast track a global government.


Obama's Global Plan
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/5991/
February 14, 2008 - 12:45 ET

GLENN: Obama and Hagel's Global Poverty Act that has just passed in the Senate committee.

It's CRAZY!!! The government is giving away even more money!!!

Okay, this is a great sounding bill, it really is. The Global Poverty Act just passed. It was number 4 on the list of things to do today, on Valentine's Day. My heart to you. It is sponsored by Barack Obama. Now, yesterday so you know, Barack Obama said, and I quote, “it's time to stop spending billions of dollars a week trying to put Iraq back together and start spending the money on putting America back together.” Got it? He wants to put America back together. That's why he proposed $210 billion yesterday to create jobs, $210 billion to create jobs. That, by the way, is a 2, a 1 followed by 10 zeroes. He wants $150 billion to create 5 million green collar jobs to do things for the environment. $150 billion, green collar jobs. Environmentally friendly energy sources will be found. It will be fantastic. He wants $60 billion to go to a national infrastructure reinvestment bank to rebuild highways, bridges, airports and other projects. He says he can create the -- the Government will generate 2 million jobs. It sounds like work projects. My gosh, how great. It sounds just like the new deal. These two million jobs, many of them will be in construction, which has been hit by the housing crisis. So don't worry. We'll fix it as the Government.

So he's proposing $210 billion yesterday and saying it's time to stop spending billions of dollars trying to put Iraq back together and start spending the money on putting America together. At the same time he proposed the Global Poverty Act. It just today passed the Senate. This is great.

Senator Biden trying to rush the Global Poverty Act through his committee, got it done. It now, if it passes -- it already has passed the House mainly because people didn't read it. If it passes now in the Senate, it will commit the United States to spending .7% of our gross national product on foreign aid, which will amount to a phenomenal $845 billion over what we already spend on foreign aid. But here's the great thing. It doesn't commit it to -- we're not committing to ourselves. We're committing to the United Nations. The United Nations will take the .7% of our GDP and -- wait a minute. That kind of sounds like -- a poverty act. That almost sounds like a global tax. A release from Obama's Senate office says the U.S. joined more than 180 countries with the United Nations Millennium Summit and vowed to reduce global poverty by 2015. But we're halfway there and it's time the United States makes this a priority, to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective in promoting the reduction of global poverty.

Now, the bill has defined the term millennium development goals as the goals set out in the declaration given by the United Nations. Just so you know, those Millennials goals not only care about poor starving children, there's other ideas in there as well. For instance, the declaration commits nations to ban small arms and weapons, ratifying a series of treaties including the International Criminal Court treaty, the Kyoto protocol, the Convention on Biological Diversity. The what? The Convention on Biological Diversity? I don't even know what that means. "We would be committed to the ratification of the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women." Does that mean the United Nations will suddenly fight Islamic extremism with us! No. No, why would that -- uh-uh. That's just diversity. "Also we would ratify the convention on the rights of a child."

Let me give you a little something on the rights of a child. These are the big Progressive thinkers. Remember Hillary Clinton is a -- she's a new Progressive. In the middle of the early 20th century Progressive. You've got to understand what that means. These are crazy people. Example? Rights of a child, if I may quote Dr. Louise Silverstein. She wrote in the American Psychologist that, quote, "Psychologists must refuse to undertake any more research that looks for the negative consequences of 'other than mother' care." It's almost like it's their global consensus. I can't find anything that says putting your kid in day care would be a bad thing. Sheez. Dr. Silverstein is almost saying in the American Psychologist that psychologists must refuse to take on any research that even looks for anything bad that might happen with child care, taking care of anybody else but mom.

Another famous Progressive philosopher and good friend of Hillary Clinton's, Linda Hershman, said that "women cannot be fully realized human beings if they don't make work a bigger priority than mothering." They're not fully realized human beings. Women are made to feel judged or shamed by their choice of day care. "This negativity will be paid forward in the form of brain-warping stress." Who is making them feel less than adequate for not working? Instead working the hardest job, the one at home. Who's making them feel that way? I know I'm not. Sandra Scarr, possibly the most quoted expert on the "Other than mother" care in America and past president of the American Psychological Society says, and I quote, "However desirable or undesirable the ideal of a full-time maternal care may be, it is now completely unrealistic in the world of the late 20th century. We must and need to create, quoting, a new century's new ideal children. These children will need to learn to love everybody like a family member. Quoting: Multiple attachments to others will become the ideal. Shyness and exclusive maternal attachment will seem dysfunctional. Quoting: New treatments will be developed for children with exclusive maternal attachments, end quote.

Can you see the new Progressive world just on the horizon where our kids can have new therapy if they only recognize mom as their mom. Children, when you have the convention on the rights of the child, children are no longer children. They are no longer yours. This is the design of Progressive fascists from the beginning of last century: Take the children and give them to the state, give them rights, make them a member of the global organization. We have seen it this year in Maine. You know the 11 -- yeah, the 11-year-olds getting the birth control pill?

GLENN: Okay, Maine. It is illegal for an 11-year-old to have sex, consensual sex, cannot have from an 11-year-old with another 11-year-old. Cannot happen. They cannot have consensual sex yet the school can now prescribe a prescription drug for the kids (to supposedly reduce risk of a sexually-transmitted disease) without telling the parents. Now wait a minute. Hang on just a sec. So wait a minute. So now we're teaching the kids that we don't have to enforce our own laws and that the school nurse is more trustworthy than the parent. We are now teaching that the school nurse, that the Government is much more of a mom or a dad than mom or dad. You can talk to me but you don't have to talk to your mom and dad.

This is not some little thing that you're like, oh, well, that's just crazy talk. This is designed, and it is designed to make your child a product of the state indoctrination. It is a design to make your child a product of a global government. It is designed to make sure that you do not have any say in your child's beliefs, education and upbringing.


(From a blog): Our Founders Gave us a Republic not a democracy - Ron Paul Knows the Difference and so should every one else in government, in addition, to every man, women and child in this country.

However, thanks to our dumbed down Old Media and our educational system there are many who believe our form of government is a "democracy." All you have to do to know this is true is to listen to any of the talking heads.

We’ve all heard the words democracy and freedom used countless times, especially in the context of our invasion of Iraq. They are used interchangeably in modern political discourse, yet their true meanings are very different.

George Orwell wrote about “meaningless words” ("Newspeak") that are endlessly repeated in the political arena*. Words like “freedom,” “democracy,” and “justice,” Orwell explained, have been abused so long that their original meanings have been eviscerated. In Orwell’s view, political words were “Often used in a consciously dishonest way.” Without precise meanings behind words, politicians and elites can obscure reality and condition people to reflexively associate certain words with positive or negative perceptions. In other words, unpleasant facts can be hidden behind purposely meaningless language. As a result, Americans have been conditioned to accept the word “democracy” as a synonym for freedom, and thus to believe that democracy is unquestionably good.

The problem is that democracy is not freedom. Democracy is simply “majoritarianism”, which is inherently incompatible with real freedom. Our founding fathers clearly understood this, as evidenced not only by our republican constitutional system, but also by their writings in the Federalist Papers and elsewhere. James Madison cautioned that under a democratic government, “There is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual.” John Adams argued that democracies merely grant revocable rights to citizens depending on the whims of the masses, while a republic exists to secure and protect pre-existing rights. Yet how many Americans know that the word “democracy” is found neither in the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence, our very founding documents?

A truly democratic election in Iraq, without U.S. interference and U.S. puppet candidates, almost certainly would result in the creation of a Shiite theocracy. Shiite majority rule in Iraq might well mean the complete political, economic, and social subjugation of the minority Kurd and Sunni Arab populations. Such an outcome would be democratic, but would it be free? Would the Kurds and Sunnis consider themselves free? The administration talks about democracy in Iraq, but is it prepared to accept a democratically-elected Iraqi government no matter what its attitude toward the U.S. occupation? Hardly. For all our talk about freedom and democracy, the truth is we have no idea whether Iraqis will be free in the future. They’re certainly not free while a foreign army occupies their country. The real test is not whether Iraq adopts a democratic, pro-western government, but rather whether ordinary Iraqis can lead their personal, religious, social, and business lives without interference from government.

Simply put, freedom is the absence of government coercion. Our Founding Fathers understood this, and created the least coercive government in the history of the world. The Constitution established a very limited, decentralized government to provide national defense and little else. States, not the federal government, were charged with protecting individuals against criminal force and fraud. For the first time, a government was created solely to protect the rights, liberties, and property of its citizens. Any government coercion beyond that necessary to secure those rights was forbidden, both through the Bill of Rights and the doctrine of strictly enumerated powers. This reflected the founders’ belief that democratic government could be as tyrannical as any King.

There's one important piece of the puzzle we're missing... and that is that the real power must remain close to the individual, at the state level.

The minute the federal sphere starts interfering with the states the power starts to shift away from the individual and closer to where external influences live.

The more these external influences impose their will at the Federal level the more the individual becomes alienated and disillusioned.

The more the individual becomes detached from the political process the more the system of government becomes closer to a totalitarian state or a fascist state. Well, this is where we are today!

We must restore the power back to the state level, closer to the individual where it can be better controlled and restrained.

Ron Paul understands this -- one more reason to vote for him.

Congratulations on a wonderfully concise and pointed illustration of the difference between a republic and a democracy. As Benjamin Franklin said, "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner." A Republic has the same two wolves and a sheep, but the sheep have all the guns.

If you want more division in this country be more "democratic": The politicians love a "democracy"! In a Republic every citizen gets the maximum benefit of his / her creator given rights. In a "democracy" we get to "chose" (umm..) or the politicians get to chose. And what usually happens? More and more it seems. That's right! 51% win and 49% lose. Half the country ends up dissatisfied with the results, more campaign money is needed to turn around the results. It stinks, voting for everything just plain stinks. You DON'T need to vote for every damn thing if you have your unalienable rights...

But so many people in this country have been conditioned to believe everything needs to be voted on and the government is to take care of them from cradle to grave.

The federal government was not created by our Founders to play the role it plays in our lives today.

It was mainly created to provide for our National Defense and that was basically it. Everything else was to be decided by each individual state -- even who our Senators were to be. That was until the 17th amendment, which by the way, should be repealed. We should go back to the way our Founders intended Senators to be chosen.

This is what Jefferson had to say about big government: "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have" -- and that includes our freedom and liberty.

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."

I was taught poorly for sure: I never understood the difference until my late 20s. Why? Am I stupid? I am an engineer after all. Well, first I had no interest as a teen other than getting work out of the way to build hobbies. Second, not one teacher ever put the definitions on the board or elaborated on exactly what the premise of each party is all about....Sure we had debates and mock politics, but we always just argued about issues and not the core philosophy. Then there's economics.....I was fortunate enough to have a forensics class where the teacher had us play a fictitious investment portfolio....fun but still not the discussion of how capitalism should balance free trade and law.

Anyways, my point is that I was thinking about important things, but our core national principles really aren't delved into that much in public school. Now you add taking out the pledge of allegiance and you have a ripe low income world labor source in the making.

Democracy is not a form of government; it is the way people participate in a form of government. There's a lot of misunderstanding about democracy. We need to go back to it's origins in Greece. This country is a Republic!

That's the problem -- most people in this country think democracy is our form of government. The Old Media keeps referring to our nation as being a democracy, so what else are people to think? After all most believe that if it isn't in the news it just isn't so, and "Republic" is rarely if ever mentioned in the news.

The body of Republic democracy is a form not state.  Whether you call it ‘democracy’ or a ‘republic’, it’s green communism. Green Communism is the base of the republic of Iran, people republic of communist China; I think republic has been falsified, since Greece had empiricist roots.

Democracy = Senate

Republic = Representatives

See the division.

Right -- and I believe that democracy used to be a potentially valid means of participating in a government-when people associated elected officials with 'public servants', instead of leaders in charge of us....which makes the idea of participatory democracy an illusion at best.

I do think that democratic participation is almost inherent in any group of people collectively consenting to live and interact together - i.e., a family, group of friends, team. Most often it will be that the minority will go along with the majority b/c they would like to be with the rest. [i.e., I am happy to do something b/c my 6 yr old would like to do it, b/c the underlying desire is that I want to be with my son.] Occasionally, the minority will simply do their own thing instead. There is a sacrifice of sovereignty, done voluntarily, in many aspects of life. An exchange in this case takes place.

Democracy is said to be based on the idea of 'popular sovereignty', whereby individuals consent to give up part of their sovereignty in exchange for social order.

This speaks to the idea that democracy has always been intended for social control, not freedom. 'Order out of Chaos', right?

With true freedom, democratic participation in government becomes an oxy-moron.

There should be term limitations at every level to allow equal participation in the representative form we have. Roosevelt was president 16 years: maybe some crusaders would be set straight if right and left wasn't hoarded.

Maybe it would be harder to control things if the two term limits went from presidents to mayors. There was an American student who won public office and was stripped of that title by opponents. Obviously greed is involved.

Our Founders never intended that serving in Congress was to be a career. They felt they were obligated to serve and then go home to whatever their chosen career was (and earn their wages from that, not by picking the pockets of those they govern for their own benefits and political paybacks.)

If "We the People" bombarded Congress like we did over the "comprehensive immigration" bill and demanded that these freeloaders put a cap on what they can earn, and eliminate all gifts and perks such as pension and health coverage, etc., (in addition to prosecuting all those who accept graft, with no opportunity for a plea deal), then maybe if we were to demand these changes, we might get only those who want to serve America, instead of those who want to serve themselves.

And if they don't do as we demand then, it is up to us to implement term limits and we do that with our vote.

I often make the same point in forums - particularly financial forums where words such as "inflation" and "deflation" and "bubble" are bandied about, yet commonly found to have no moorings. Newspeak (Orwell's book, 1984) doesn't require new words when you can misuse an old one and go unchallenged.

The key part of winning this election is waking those who are still "asleep". Without understanding that we are NOT a "democracy" but rather a "republic", the importance of the Constitution is nearly impossible to convey. I use the word "republic" a lot and generally try to either sneak in the definition or ask whether the audience knows the difference. Very few, I've found, know the difference. I don't think that's coincidence.

Paul is branded an "eccentric", "radical", or worse when ALL he is saying is that the US has a "rule of law" called the Constitution and that MOST of the "solutions" be proposed by candidates are simply illegal under the Constitution since the Constitution (specifically the 10th Amendment) makes crystal clear that the scope of Federal authority is severely limited.

The question I like to ask people is "When you recite the Pledge of Allegiance, do you mean it?" They say, "yes!" I point out that the Pledge specifically says "...and to the REPUBLIC for which it Stands". I then explain how the Republic IS the Constitution. I ask "are you for or against the US Constitution?" (If someone says they are against it, I don't waste any further time - what else can I say...there are enemies of the Republic everywhere.) And when you pledge allegiance, do you salute your crotch, like Obama does, or do you place your hand over your heart to show you mean it?

At this point I like to pull out a handy copy of the Constitution plus Bill of Rights. First I point out that the whole thing is *quite* short and written in English so clear that anyone can understand most of it with ease.

In particular I like to flip to the 10th Amendment and read: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

I ask if that is clear enough. I ask if they think a lawyer is necessary to "interpret" the meaning of that Amendment. I point out that the Founding Fathers were smart men and very well educated. That they wrote with great specificity and clarity specifically because they wanted to make sure the Federal government could never grow to become what it has become.

I point out that Ron Paul, and only Ron Paul, speaks clearly, respects the Constitution, and follows the law.

From there the conversation goes where it goes, but that is the framework in which I try to work. I find that once people agree that they support the Constitution and have a copy in their hands, with the 10th right in front of them, that the whole conversation takes on a different demeanor. Either that or I find I am dealing with someone who wants pork at any price ... even if they have to live in a cage in order to get their pork meal, and I disengage.

I love this line: "You can't force people to abandon The Matrix. You can only educate them." Although, I don't believe you can educate them, either -- only expose them to information and ideas.


Peter Schweizer: Liberals Are More Selfish Than Conservatives 
Monday, June 2, 2008 1:51 PM
By: Ronald Kessler
 
Contrary to the image they try to project, liberals are less compassionate and more selfish than conservatives, according to a new book by Peter Schweizer.

Drawing on extensive attitude surveys, Schweizer’s “Makers and Takers: Why Conservatives Work Harder, Feel Happier, Have Closer Families, Take Fewer Drugs, Give More Generously, Value Honesty More, Are Less Materialistic and Envious, Whine Less . . . and Even Hug Their Children More Than Liberals,” which comes out this week, says liberals are much more likely than conservatives to think about themselves first and are less willing to make sacrifices for others. [Editor's Note: Get Peter Schweizer's book.]

Some 71 percent of conservatives say they have an obligation to care for a seriously injured spouse or parent, compared with 46 percent for liberals. Asked if they would endure all things for the one they love, 55 percent of conservatives say yes, compared with 26 percent of liberals.

Equally revealing, liberals are far more likely to say they are depressed and to view the world bleakly. Schweizer attributes that to an attitude that they and those around them are victims and helpless unless the government intervenes.

In answer to a question from Newsmax, Schweizer says that may help explain why liberal politicians and reporters tend to see everything with pessimism, from the economy to the war on terror and the war in Iraq.

Schweizer says the media and liberal professors have successfully obscured these differences by painting a picture of conservatives as mean-spirited. He quotes one professor as saying that conservatives embrace the “unimpeded pursuit of self-interest” to get what they want and that as children, they were insecure and whiny.

Conservatives are selfish, Robert Reich, Bill Clinton’s former labor secretary, has said, and “they pander to the worst of us.”

Sen. Charles Schumer said on Bill Maher’s HBO show “Real Time,” “There are some, you know, there are some anti-Semites in this county, but most of them would vote Republican anyway.”

Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean has said conservatives and Republicans are “evil,” “corrupt,” brain-dead,” and “not very nice people” who have “never made an honest living in their lives.”

If Schweizer’s book is a ground-breaker, it also raises the question of why Schweizer’s findings may come as a surprise even to conservatives. Schweizer cites ample evidence that the media have ignored good news about conservatives and have helped perpetuate the myth that liberals are more compassionate and caring.

Katie Couric has said that during the Reagan era, "greed and materialism was the norm.” Alan Colmes of Fox News’ "Hannity & Colmes" has said that “Jesus was a liberal” because he was much more generous with limited resources than a conservative would be.

Liberals Perpetuate the Myth

“The media have perpetuated these myths about conservatives over the years,” Schweizer tells Newsmax. “And the media were very comfortable passing these things along because they conformed to their world view."

Drawing on hard polling data, Schweizer demonstrates that the truth is quite the opposite. In doing so, he explodes more myths than firecrackers on the Fourth of July.

In fact, Schweizer writes, self-described liberals and Democrats, who profess to be tolerant, are much more likely to embrace stereotypes of Jews than conservatives or Republicans. Some 45 percent of self-described “strong” Democrats or liberals agree with the statement that Jews are inordinately rich and money-driven, compared with 36 percent of strong Republicans and conservatives.

Schweizer cites similar research to show that even when they are in the same income brackets, liberals are far more likely to complain about their jobs, families, neighbors, health, and their relative wealth than conservatives.

Liberals are much more likely to say that money is important to them, according to the surveys Schweizer cites. They are two and a half times more likely to be resentful of others’ success and 50 percent more likely to be jealous of other people’s good luck. Conservatives are much more likely than liberals to spend time with their families, hug their children, and be close to their parents.

Liberals tend to work less hard and are more likely than conservatives to embrace leisure time as desirable. When asked if competition is good, those who defined themselves as very liberal say yes only 14 percent of the time, compared with 43 percent for conservatives.

Liberals are more likely to say that truth is something that is “relative.” When asked if they believe in ghosts, 42 percent of liberals say they do, compared with 25 percent of conservatives. Liberals are more likely to say that’s it’s OK to be dishonest or deceptive, cheat on taxes, keep money that doesn’t belong to them, and sell a used car with a faulty transmission to a family member.

Overall, conservatives are more satisfied with their lives, their professions, and their health compared with liberals of the same age and income level.

Schweizer balances these findings with a few issues where liberals come out ahead. He says liberals are more likely than conservatives to be open to new experiences in travel, art, and music. But Schweizer exposes hypocrisy at the core of liberal beliefs. While liberals claim to be compassionate and to care about the poor, conservatives are much more likely to donate their time and money to charitable causes.

When Reich ran for governor of Massachusetts in 2002, his tax returns revealed income of more than $1 million, but he contributed just $2,714 to charity, or less than 0.3 percent.

Ned Lamont, the anti-war Democrat who ran against Sen. Joe Lieberman in Connecticut, is worth $200 million and made $2.8 million in 2005. He has talked about the need to raise taxes because the wealthy are not doing enough to help those in need. Yet in 2005, he donated only $5,385 to charity, or less than 0.2 percent of his income.

In contrast, George Bush gave 10 percent of his income to charity in 2005. In 2005, Barack Obama made $1.7 million, or 2.5 times what Bush made that year, but gave the same amount to charity as Bush did. That same year, Dick Cheney gave away 77 percent of his income to charity.

Proud Conservatives

While Schweizer does not address attitudes about national security (the subject of his next book), he says liberals are more concerned about what others think than conservatives. When asked what is most important to prepare a child for life, 40 percent of liberals listed “being popular” among them, compared with 24 percent of conservatives.

On the other hand, conservatives were more likely to say one of their main goals in life is to “make my parents proud.” Presumably, those who are more concerned about what others think are more likely to be concerned about criticism of firm national security policies.

Finally, liberals try to paint conservatives as dumb — Clark Clifford called Ronald Reagan an “amiable dunce.” Schweizer shows that while John Kerry scored in the 91st percentile on a military IQ test, George Bush scored in the 95th percentile. Contrary to misrepresentations in the media, Bush also had slightly higher grades at Yale than Kerry.

Schweizer attributes liberals’ bleaker outlook on life to their deep-seated victim mentality.

This feeds a view that they cannot help themselves and encourages them to be passive. They are far more likely to say that luck or fate plays a role in their lives, as opposed to citing the need to take action themselves.

The victim mentality, in turn, makes them more likely to become depressed, suffer from a nervous breakdown, attempt suicide, be chronically angry, throw something in a fit of anger, seek revenge, and have a bleak outlook on life in general.

In one survey, 34 percent of liberals said the problems of life were just too big to cope with, compared with 19 percent of conservatives.

“Liberals often feel overwhelmed by life’s problems because they are waiting for the government to fix them,” Schweizer says. “”When it doesn’t, liberals blame others (and ‘society’) for their misfortune.” Thus, liberalism “often damages its own adherents the most,” Schweitzer says.

“Modern liberal ideas consistently encourage bad habits and destructive behavioral tendencies,” says Schweizer, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution.

Schweizer says liberalism is appealing because it gives lip service to lofty ideals but demands little action. Liberalism considers as noble those who complain about personal difficulties and display anger or denounce our “money-making culture,” but liberalism does not stress taking personal responsibility and action.

Thus, “While liberals tend to be much more fixated on money, they convince themselves that if they hold the belief that our society is too obsessed by money, the money culture doesn’t influence them adversely the way that it does other people,” Schweizer says.

“Modern liberalism is a wonderful tool to kind of avoid having to make much change in your life,” Schweizer says. “It’s kind of in my mind the equivalent to carbon offsets. You don’t need to change anything in your life, you simply have to sort of stamp this document or pay this minor price, and the problems in your life just sort of go away.”


Leftist host Ken Altshuler from "Mike and Ken on WGAN" leaves Dems live on air
June 11, 2008 - 12:41 ET

GLENN: You and I were having an interesting conversation today because I couldn't believe this. You are a guy who believes in the socialized world but you are not for Barack Obama, and we actually agree on why. Will you explain it?

Ken Altshuler: I will. Not only am I not for him, I will not vote for him. And I won't vote for him and I won't support him because number one, I don't know who he is. He is absolutely an unknown quantity. He has done very little votes, he has stood for very little positions. He talks in platitudes. He talked in hope and change without substance. So we don't know who he is. In addition to that, we do know some things about who he surrounds himself with. There's a reverend named Reverend Wright who is a racist. This is his spiritual advisor. He has a wife who by my point of view is militant, is angry. And I believe the people running his campaign who will run the government if he's elected have a hidden agenda. I'm not sure what it is but I don't think I like it.

GLENN: I think his wife is frightening. She is really, truly a militant in my point of view. Why do you say that?

ALTSHULER: Well, let's look at what we know about her. She started out talking about such things as this is the first time I'm proud to be an American. That is classic frankly militant African American jargon for saying finally we are getting our day in court, we're getting our day in the spotlight.

GLENN: So wait a minute. Hang on just a second. I just assumed that because you were a liberal, you weren't a racist, but now I understand you're a racist.

ALTSHULER: Oh, that's right. I'm not supposed to criticize any African American. I apologize. How could I be see, and that is the classic. The minute you criticize this man, you are a racist. There's no valid criticism and that's why I am going to tell you if it be President Barack Obama come November 4th.

GLENN: You do believe he is going to win?

ALTSHULER: I believe that John McCain doesn't have a chance because wait, now sit down for this one, Mr. Beck. The liberal media bias will coast him into office because...

GLENN: Wait a minute. You, Sam the socialist is telling me it's the liberal media bias that is going to get Barack Obama elected?

ALTSHULER: The media decided the minute he ran that he was the next President, and they have actively campaigned for him since day one. They absolutely destroyed any chance Hillary Clinton had. She helped (destroy) herself a little bit. They destroyed the campaign, they will do the same thing with John McCain and you can have all the Karl Roves you want, but you can't touch that man.

GLENN: So Ken, how do you how do you put this together in your head? How do you look at this because your world, this is the world that I expected, the liberal media bias, I expected this. I expected the political correctness. I expected radicals. I've been saying this for years: "Democrats, you've got to wake up because you have absolute radicals in your ranks." When you're dealing with people like Michael Moore and you are putting them in a presidential box at the convention with the other radical Jimmy Carter. When they are putting these two people together, the enemy is inside the gates and they have destroyed the Democratic party. I expected this. Did you?

ALTSHULER: I did not and I must say there were hints of it as early as George McGovern in 1972. I actually thought that the Democratic party at some point could become a cohesive unit. Mr. Beck, I am prepared on the show to withdraw from the Democratic party and become an independent because I cannot belong to a party that can't think independently and choose somebody who can lead our country instead of going with this hope and change without any substance.

GLENN: Okay. Go ahead. Let's go ahead. Because in Maine, in Portland, Ken withdrawing from the Democratic party? Go ahead, go ahead.

ALTSHULER: Remember: most good Democrats, and there are some out there, are willows, Mr. Beck. We can bend. We are flexible. We go issue by issue, and there are some issues I agree with, the mainstream...

GLENN: This doesn't sound like you are officially withdrawing from the Democratic party.

ALTSHULER: I am officially withdrawing because this party no longer represents me. They have drank the Kool Aid, they are going with what the media tells them will make them feel comfortable. They are feeling they are drinking the Kool Aid of white guilt, which is what's propelling Barack Obama into the presidency. I can't drink that Kool Aid.

GLENN: Now, how much of this is just you're pissed off because your candidate didn't win?

ALTSHULER: Hillary lost the election for a number of reasons. Number one, it was the worst run campaign in the history of American politics. Nobody accounted for the fact that all of a sudden the people were going to hate Bill Clinton. Also, the strategy of going to the big states, ignoring the caucuses, having no campaign strategy, this was a failed strategy. She deserves to lose. However, that being said I could still get behind a candidate who is an independent thinker, who will decide issue by issue and then look at a comprehensive picture of American politics. Barack Obama, I must tell you, may be that man. I just don't know that. He needs to have a proven track record.

GLENN: Is there anything that he could say before the election that would that would make you go, you know what, I'm going to go for Barack Obama?

ALTSHULER: Yes. He could say I've decided I'm not experienced enough; I'm going to stay in the Senate for six more years and then I'll run again and then you'll know who I am and then you can vote for me.

ALTSHULER: All right. That's not going to happen.

ALTSHULER: I know it's not going to happen.

GLENN: It's just like a liberal to come up with some plan like that. By the way, you're in usual company here. Katie Couric said, "However you feel about Hillary Clinton's politics, I feel that Senator Clinton received some of the most unfair, hostile coverage I've ever seen."

ALTSHULER: There's no doubt that that's true and I don't know if it's because she's Hillary Clinton and I must tell you I think there was some gender bias involved as well, but I think Hillary self-destructed and I think there's nobody to blame but herself.

GLENN: Ken, look: this came as a surprise to you guys. Can you talk to somebody here? As a guy who this didn't come as a surprise to that the media is like this, may I explain it to you?

ALTSHULER: Please.

GLENN: Here's what happened. There's no gender bias here. The people in the media are so uber left, they pick their candidate and then it doesn't matter what the truth is. It doesn't matter who the person is running. It doesn't matter. They will throw anybody under the bus. They will do whatever they have to do to get their guy elected. That's the way it is. So it doesn't matter that it was Hillary Clinton. Doesn't matter. Could have been a guy.

Look what they did to Mitt Romney -- all of a sudden his religion was such a big deal. Why was it such a big deal? How come Mike Huckabee's religion wasn't a big deal? How come the religion of Barack Obama is not such a big deal? They did it because they knew that Mitt Romney had to be taken out. They wanted John McCain.

ALTSHULER: Glenn, I can't believe this. For the second time today you are 100% correct.

GLENN: This is you know what? Prepare yourself for the end of the world. It is coming. Thanks a lot, Ken. That's Ken from the morning show. Mike and Ken here on WGAN.


The Way to Box In Barack on Iraq
Friday, July 18, 2008
By: Dick Morris and Eileen McGann

The shadow of the Iraq War still hovers over the 2008 presidential race. In deed, though it's the issue that made Barack Obama (giving him his running room to Hillary Clinton's left), it may now become his chief vulnerability.

Weak on national-security issues, untried, inexperienced and (perhaps) naive, Obama can find the Iraq issue hard to handle - if John McCain plays it right.

Obama has long since won the issue of Iraq-past - opposing the war before anyone and voting continuously and solidly against it when others waffled.

Yet McCain is winning Iraq-present: A majority of Americans believe that the surge is working. Casualties are down so far that the pessimistic left has shifted its doom-and-gloom to Afghanistan.

But McCain's key opportunity is to exploit the issue of Iraq-future.

To start, he must ask Obama: "Why won't your troop withdrawal allow al-Qaida and Iran to move into the vacuum, taking over Iraq to use it as a base for terror against us and Israel?"

Obama will hem and haw, but McCain must keep at him - and force his opponent to confront the consequences.

How will Obama answer?

He can't shift his position on his signature issue much more - or he'd get an even worse rap for flip-flopping. So he'll start by stressing the ongoing troop presence that he'll allow in Iraq.

He has said (vaguely) that he'll permit sufficient troops to cover our pullout, protect our embassy and pursue al Qaeda terrorists. Now he'll try to sell the idea that his gradual withdrawal over 16 months and his ongoing troop commitment will hold al Qaeda and Iran at bay.

But who'll believe that? Experience has taught Americans to expect the worst about Iraq. They're inclined to agree that, if we pull out, al-Qaida will move in. It's also self-evident that Iranian influence will grow as ours' declines. (To the extent that we do believe it, Obama will alienate the left and drive voters to Ralph Nader.)

His next dodge will be to talk up diplomacy - that a dialogue with the mullahs can hold Iran at bay. But no negotiations are possible with al-Qaida - and Americans realize that talks with Iran will go nowhere unless we have the leverage of force. His reliance on diplomacy will come off as naive, reinforcing the impression that he's not ready for the job.

Eventually, he'll have to say he's prepared to go back into Iraq if the situation deteriorates. Voters will realize that a nominal troop presence and diplomacy won't do the job.

That's when McCain moves in for the kill: "So, isn't your rigid adherence to withdrawal inviting a third Iraq War?"

He can claim the mantle of the true peace candidate - saying that he'll stay in Iraq, keep control, build up the Iraqi army and keep US casualties down. Obama's pullout, he can warn, would mean an inevitable third Iraq war. Obama is stuck seeming either naive - or just as likely to get us into a war as President Bush was.

The success of the surge has created an ideal situation for McCain. What had been the chief Democratic argument against the Republicans can now be their best tool to destroy Obama.


American flag disappears from Obama campaign jet
Candidate's trademark 'O' replaces stars and stripes
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=70236

Guess what terrorists are doing for Obama on Mideast trip?
'Maybe the Israelis will try something,' hints militant bodyguard
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=70124

Obama birth certificate 'horrible forgery'
Document forensics expert reaches conclusion with 100% certainty
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=70150


No Freedom of Speech in U.S. Unless it's a Certain Point-of-View: N.Y. Times rejects McCain editorial
Editor, an ex-Clinton aide, explains it should 'mirror' Obama's
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=70192

McCain, Obama or 'none of the above' removable bumper sticker
2008 could be historic election of non-participation
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=67393

President Barack? Just say NObama!
New, removable bumper sticker lets everyone know your thoughts about Democrat
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=66830


Obama's Centrist Strategy 
Monday, July 21, 2008 11:08 AM
By: Paul M. Weyrich

Whatever one thought of President Richard M. Nixon, his political advice was worth considering. One cannot help but think of the late president as one observes the current race for the presidency.

Nixon suggested multiple times that a potential presidential nominee run to the left or right in obtaining the presidential nomination, but upon securing the nomination, the candidate should run to the center, as that is where the majority of the electorate is.

He pointed to Barry M. Goldwater who ran hard to the right to secure the nomination in 1964 but failed to run toward the center and was crushed in the general election. He highlighted George S. McGovern who ran hard to the left to secure the Democratic nomination in 1972 but who continued to run to the left in the general election and was defeated by Nixon.

Those who disagree with Nixon often point to President Ronald W. Reagan who ran to the right to win the nomination in Detroit in 1980 but did not move to the center for the general election and yet crushed the incumbent Jimmy Carter. One can argue Nixon’s advice with case studies.

The fact is that most candidates of either party tend to follow it. And so it is with Sen. Barack H. Obama, D-Ill., who ran to the left of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., to win the Democratic nomination but who has since galloped to the center. Guess what? It is working.

A colleague expressed amazement that more of an issue has not been made of Obama’s move to the center. He expected Obama to lose support from the left over his centrist moves. My favorite local radio talk-show host, 630 WMAL’s Chris Plante, suggested that if Obama maintains his move to the center, he may find himself more in agreement with Obama than with the presumed GOP nominee, Sen. John S. McCain III, who has taken many positions in his career which upset traditional conservatives.

Here is why what Obama has done has helped him. When the first-term senator from Illinois began his run for the presidency, he was an unknown quantity nationally. Even in Illinois, where he had served in the state Senate and where he had won a landslide victory over conservative Alan Keyes, voters knew little about him.

That gave Republicans the opportunity to define who he was before he had a chance to do so himself. They brought up his association with radical leftists such as Pentagon bomber Bill Ayers and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who damns America, and the fact that National Journal had named him the most liberal senator in Congress. Voters were unsure who the senator was. Was he really a doctrinaire leftist who exceeded Senator Clinton’s liberalism? So voters began to pay more attention to Obama.

By apparently softening his demand for instant withdrawal from Iraq, by supporting the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which earlier he had vowed he would filibuster, and by rejecting public financing when he had said he would take it, he moved to the center. Republicans thought they had another opportunity to make Obama into a flip-flopper, as they did with the 2004 Democratic nominee, Sen. John F. Kerry, D-Mass. It has not worked. Why? Because the public does not object when a candidate changes his mind so long as the change is in a direction they approve.

Likewise the Obama campaign made a big deal of Sen. McCain’s switch to permit offshore oil and gas drilling and to support tax cuts he originally opposed. The public wants those policies changed, so McCain is not to be faulted for moving in such a direction.

But back to Obama. The public is very fair. When they hear an accusation they do not believe it immediately. They first observe the reaction of the candidate against whom the charge is made. Then they look at the content of the position and whether it is in the direction they like. If it is something with which they agree, the flip-flopping argument does not hold. So here is this brand new senator from Illinois who started out the race for the presidency with a blank slate which tilted left.

Unlike his chief rivals, Clinton and McCain, both of whom had public records, Obama was relatively unknown. Now that the public thinks he is not locked into the left but appears willing to compromise, they have a more favorable opinion of him. He has begun to open a small lead over McCain and in some states, such as Pennsylvania, his lead is a double digit one.

It was the same with Reagan in 1980. In California, Reagan was well known, having been a two-term governor, but nationally he was unknown like Obama. Liberals branded Reagan a B-movie actor who was really a warmonger and might get us into World War III. He wanted to take away Social Security and was just plain dumb and uneducated.

Carter, having survived a primary challenge from Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., had a steady lead over Reagan until their only debate, less than two weeks before the election. The public tuned into that debate in record numbers.

The public had heard the charges liberals made against Reagan but they did not believe them automatically. When they saw Reagan debate that night, they saw that the description liberals had made of the governor did not match reality. He was well-educated, informed, and non-threatening.

The idea of cowboy Reagan dragging us into war simply did not correspond to what they saw. Immediately after that debate Reagan opened a small but steady lead against Carter which culminated in the former’s landslide victory that November.

It is true that Obama’s friends on the left who helped in the primary elections earlier in the year are angry at the presumed Democratic nominee. That helps Obama. To have the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who represents yesterday’s politics, attack Obama has caused voters who previously supported Clinton to think that the Illinois Senator cannot be that bad. This is right out of the Clinton play book.

It is still a long time before the elections. Anything can happen between now and then, so we cannot draw any permanent conclusions from what is happening in campaign 2008 for the moment. Still, Richard Nixon must be smiling as another presidential candidate benefits from his advice.


Gaffemaster Alert: The Pearl Harbor Bomb by Ed Morrissey
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/07/18/gaffemaster-alert-the-pearl-harbor-bomb/?print=1

Barack Obama must have gone off script again in West Lafayette, Indiana on Wednesday. When addressing the crowd on national security, Obama mangled the attack on Pearl Harbor. For a Hawaii native, this tops the Young Gaffer list of historical fumbles (via Dean Barnett):

But it is wonderful to be back in Indiana. In a few moments, we’ll open up the discussion. But I want to offer a few comments about some of the emerging threats that we face in the 21st century and offer some ideas about how we can face those threats.

Throughout our history, America’s confronted constantly evolving danger, from the oppression of an empire, to the lawlessness of the frontier, from the bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor, to the threat of nuclear annihilation. Americans have adapted to the threats posed by an ever-changing world.

Just to clarify: a whole lot of bombs fell on Pearl Harbor. And the threat wasn’t the bomb, it was the empire that sent massive waves of planes to drop them on our Pacific Fleet. Those bombs fell because we didn’t adapt to the threat, and in fact we kept telling ourselves that we could talk the Japanese out of their policy of aggression and empire. We came within a few aircraft carriers of losing the Pacific out of our willful blindness to the nature of the Japanese.

The same can be said for the “nuclear annihilation” Obama also mentions. The threat wasn’t nuclear annihilation as such; that was part of the threat, not the entire threat itself. The real threat came from another kind of empire, one that wanted to conquer from within as well as without — and the American Left after 1969 spent most of its time arguing that the threat didn’t really exist, that Soviet Communism wanted peaceful coexistence, and that socialism and Communism were the achievement of Utopia. After Jimmy Carter’s disastrous cheek-kissing with Leonid Brezhnev and the invasion of Afghanistan that followed, America woke up and put adults in charge - and within a decade, the Soviet Union collapsed of its own contradictions and rot.

This gaffe goes beyond placing Auschwitz and Treblinka in western Germany or putting American troops in Poland during World War II. It speaks to a fundamental superficiality of Obama, a man who seizes tropes and themes with little understanding of their significance or their details. Obama reveals himself as a man who doesn’t understand threats at all, and whose instinctive responses would make them far worse.

Update: Here’s the video; the stumble comes in the first moments. Note the long pause as Obama talks about the bomb at Pearl Harbor. It looks like he went off script: (http://hotair.com/archives/2008/07/18/gaffemaster-alert-the-pearl-harbor-bomb/?print=1)

A lot of the most damaging bombs were, I believe, torpedoes. Did torpedoes “fall” on Pearl Harbor?


Kumbaya Falls Flat In Berlin
By Star Parker
July 28, 2008

The headline on the website of German magazine Der Spiegel about Barack Obama's speech in Berlin: "Huge Crowds Left with Mixed Feelings."

Two hundred thousand turned out for the speech, but CNN's Candy Crowley reported an "absence of euphoria" at the event.

As Senator Obama went global with "Yes, we can" and "Change we can believe in" he left at least some of the horde in Berlin scratching their heads. Perhaps these Germans, out to hear what all the excitement was about, were looking for leadership and substance rather than kumbaya.

What they got was the global version of "There is not a White America and a Black America and Latino America and Asian American America -- there is the United States of America."

Obama spoke not just as a "proud citizen of the United States but a fellow citizen of the world."

His message: "The walls between races and tribes, natives and immigrants, Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down."

At least some of the Germans listening to Obama surely sensed there was something problematic with what he was saying. His analogy of the tearing down of the Berlin wall to tearing down all lines of distinction between nations and religions was obviously fractured. The Berlin wall was a political wall that divided one people. It separated Germans from other Germans, a far cry from distinctions between nations and religions that Obama apparently wants to obliterate.

The German, French and British each have a strong sense of national history and identity.

Efforts for a European Union constitution that would establish links in Europe going beyond economics and extending to politics have thus far failed.

Perhaps the realities of Europe delivered an unanticipated surprise to the slick marketing machine driving the Obama presidential campaign.

Unlike in the United States, where you drive coast to coast and hear one language, where national culture is at least as influential and pervasive as regional differences, Europe consists of different countries. When you get to national borders, languages and cultures change.

For Obama, differences seem to be what cause the world's problems. We endlessly hear the story of his mixed-race background and his translation of his personal history into a message of the meaninglessness of difference.

It may come as a surprise to Obama, but for Christians, for Muslims, and for Jews, their differences do not amount to barriers to a better world but sources of meaning that define themselves and the world.

They want to be Christians, Muslims, and Jews. They just want protection. They want to be able to be who they are and live peacefully and securely. Those disturbing this security are the problem. Not the differences.

Which gets to Obama's very problematic idea about freedom.

He does not seem to grasp that the beauty of freedom is its respect for differences and creation of conditions, legal and political, which allow them to exist, flourish, and provide benefits to all. In fact, politicians with agendas to "unify," who think they know who and what everyone should be, are invariably those who threaten freedom.

Obama used the occasion of this speech to apologize to Europe about his country. "We've made a lot of mistakes, and there are times when our actions around the world have not lived up to our best intentions." But, covering his bases, he made a point to follow up and assure the crowd that ". . . I know how much I love America."

What every American should demand from Obama is clarification of what, if anything, he sees unique about the America that he claims to loves so much. For a man whose ideal seems to be the global village, with no barriers or differences, is there anything special about the United States that makes it distinct from other nations -- that defines it as uniquely great?

What is the distinction between the "proud citizen of the United States" and the "fellow citizen of the world." Those in Berlin heard none and many went home legitimately confused.
---

Obama's Inappropriate Avoidance of Wounded Troops
Posted By Greg Reeson On July 25, 2008

So Senator Obama and his campaign decided that it would be inappropriate to visit wounded soldiers in Germany while touring Europe as a candidate for the presidency. Senator McCain hit this one right on the head: it is never inappropriate to visit our wounded men and women in uniform. In fact, I don't anything could have been MORE appropriate.

The Obama camp's explanation was that since the Europe trip was funded by his presidential campaign, it wasn't right to schedule a visit with our injured soldiers (and I use that term to mean soldiers, sailors, marines, and members of the Coast Guard) and that the decision was made out of "respect" for the members of our armed forces.

Newsflash: the best way to show "respect" to our wounded is to visit them, spend time with them, love them, and care for them. Each and every one of them is a hero who volunteered to serve his or her country in uniform, and then shed their blood so that the rest of America's citizens could go about their daily lives in ignorant bliss.

I find it hard to accept the campaign's reasoning for the cancellation of the visit. I just don't buy it. What's really going on here? Is it that Senator Obama was worried that he might not be greeted as warmly by the men and women doing the fighting as he was by the Europeans eager for the United States to end the war in Iraq? Was Senator Obama showing us all what his priorities are by making a huge production of his "We are all citizens of the world and I'm going to fix America for you" speech rather than thanking those who left pieces of themselves on Iraq's battlefields? What's the real reason behind this?

I'm not buying the campaign line, and neither should anyone else. As a sitting United States Senator and serious contender for the presidency of the United States, I believe that Senator Obama had an OBLIGATION to visit our wounded men and women in uniform.
---

Obama Is Hooked On Adoration and Would Govern by the Polls
Posted By Cheri Jacobus On July 24, 2008

Obama is speaking to a crowd of several hundred thousand Germans and proclaiming he "will change the world!" The venue for his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention was changed so that he could speak to tens of thousands more supporters live, in person. He eschews smaller, more intimate town hall meetings where he might actually have to talk with people, preferring to shout at large crowds from the stage like a televangelist promising to heal the sick if you just write one more check. Rarely do we see him having a conversation and engaging in substance with voters who might dare to peel back the veneer to see what he fears will be shown to be a lot of nothing.

In the abstract, it is easy to see how his style of campaigning feels better to him. Adoring crowds, and being cheered by his supporters -- it's gotta make a guy feel pretty good about himself. It's interesting to note, however, that the polls are nearly neck and neck, indicating that John McCain has virtually the same number of supporters. One significant difference between these two men is that Obama needs the adoration and constant affirmation, while John McCain is secure enough in his experience and leadership abilities and credentials to actually talk with voters and, importantly, listen.

John McCain has said many times, even when way behind others in the Republican primary last year, that he would rather win the war in Iraq than win an election. A president in wartime and tough economic times needs to be strong enough and have enough intestinal fortitude to govern in a manner that is best for the nation, even in times when the polls are against him. John McCain has proven he can do this without batting an eye. In contrast, Barack Obama has already shown us all that being the most popular kid in school is what's most important to him. With virtually no experience to prepare him for the presidency, Barack Obama has already shown us he will govern by the polls, regardless of what is best for the nation.

Perhaps we can just crown Obama our national Homecoming Queen and he will be happy. Because putting this guy in the White House is feeling scarier and scarier.
---

Random Thoughts
By Thomas Sowell
July 29, 2008

Random thoughts on the passing scene:

Government bailouts are like potato chips: You can't stop with just one.

Anyone who is honest with himself and with others knows that there is not a snow ball's chance in hell to have an honest dialogue about race.

I wonder what radical feminists make of the fact that it was men who created the rule of "women and children first" when it came to rescuing people from life-threatening emergencies.

Barack Obama's motto "Change you can believe in" has acquired a new meaning-- changing his positions is the only thing you can believe in. His campaign began with a huge change in the image he projects, compared to what he was doing for 20 years before.

Despite the New York Yankees' awesome record over the years, no one has ever made 3,000 hits in his career as a Yankee, nor has any pitcher ever had 300 lifetime victories with the Yankees. Despite their well-deserved reputation as "the Bronx Bombers," there is only one Yankee among the top ten career homerun hitters.

After getting DVDs of old "Perry Mason" TV programs and old "Law & Order" programs, I found myself watching far more of the "Perry Mason" series. The difference is that too many "Law & Order" programs tried to raise my consciousness on social issues, as if that is their role or their competence.

What is amazing this year is how many people have bought the fundamentally childish notion that, if you don't like the way things are going, the answer is to write a blank check for generic "change," empowering someone chosen not on the basis of any track record but on the basis of his skill with words.

With all the big-name entertainers who have put on shows in prisons, why have so few put on shows for our troops in Iraq?

To me, the phrase "glass ceiling" is an insult to my intelligence. What does the word "glass" mean, in this context, except that you can't see it? Yet I am supposed to believe it without evidence because, otherwise, I will be considered a bad person and called names.

When New York Times writer Linda Greenhouse recently declared the 1987 confirmation hearings for Judge Robert Bork "both fair and profound," it was as close to a declaration of moral bankruptcy as possible. Those hearings were a triumph of character assassination by politicians with no character of their own. The country is still paying the price, as potential judicial nominees decline to be nominated and then smeared on nationwide television.

Some of the most emotionally powerful words are undefined, such as "social justice," "a living wage," "price gouging" or a "fragile" environment, for example. Such terms are especially valuable to politicians during an election year, for these terms can attract the votes of people who mean very different-- and even mutually contradictory-- things when they use these words.

It may not be possible to have machines call balls and strikes in baseball, since the vertical strike zone depends on the height of each batter. But a machine can tell whether any part of the ball passed over any part of the plate, so that umpires won't be able to call their own "wide strikes" any more.

It is hard to get the supporters of Barack Obama to give a coherent reason for their support. The basis for their support seems to be guilt, gullibility or-- in the case of some conservatives-- a hatred of John McCain.

It is heart-warming to see the Williams sisters maturing as people. They made tennis history from the beginning but they had a lot to learn about human relations-- and now they seem to have learned it.

How many in the media have expressed half as much outrage about the beheading of innocent people by terrorists in Iraq as they have about the captured terrorists held at Guantanamo not being treated as nicely as they think they should be?

Although most of the mainstream media are still swooning over Barack Obama, a few critics are calling the things he advocates "naive." But that assumes that he is trying to solve the country's problems. If he is trying to solve his own problem of getting elected, then he is telling the voters just what they want to hear. That is not naive but shrewd and cynical.
---

Known Unknowns About Obama
By Richard Cohen

"Just tell me one thing Barack Obama has done that you admire," I asked a prominent Democrat. He paused and then said that he admired Obama's speech to the Democratic convention in 2004. I agreed. It was a hell of a speech, but it was just a speech.

On the other hand, I continued, I could cite four or five actions -- not speeches -- that John McCain has taken that elicit my admiration, even my awe. First, of course, is his decision as a Vietnam War POW to refuse freedom out of concern that he would be exploited for propaganda purposes. To paraphrase what Kipling said about Gunga Din, John McCain is a better man than most.

But I would not stop there. I would include campaign finance reform, which infuriated so many in his own party; opposition to earmarks, which won him no friends; his politically imprudent opposition to the Medicare prescription drug bill (Medicare has about $35 trillion in unfunded obligations); and, last but not least, his very early call for additional troops in Iraq. His was a lonely position, virtually suicidal for an all-but-certain presidential candidate, and no help when his campaign nearly expired last summer. In all these cases, McCain stuck to his guns.

Obama argues that he himself stuck to the biggest gun of all: opposition to the war. He took that position back when the war was enormously popular, the president who initiated it was even more popular, and critics of both were slandered as unpatriotic. But at the time, Obama was a mere Illinois state senator, representing the (very) liberal Hyde Park area of Chicago. He either voiced his conscience or his district's leanings or (lucky fella) both. We will never know.

And we will never know, either, how Obama might have conducted himself had he served in Congress as long as McCain has. Possibly he would have earned a reputation for furious, maybe even sanctimonious, integrity of the sort that often drove McCain's colleagues to dark thoughts of senatorcide, but the record -- scant as it is -- suggests otherwise. Obama is not noted for sticking to a position or a person once it (or he) becomes a political liability. (Names available upon request.)

All politicians change their positions, sometimes even because they have changed their mind. McCain must have suffered excruciating whiplash from totally reversing himself on George Bush's tax cuts. He has denounced preachers he later embraced and then, to his chagrin, has had to denounce them all over again. This plasticity has a label: Pandering. McCain knows how it's done.

But Obama has shown that in this area, youth is no handicap. He has been for and against gun control, against and for the recent domestic surveillance legislation and, in almost a single day, for a united Jerusalem under Israeli control and then, when apprised of U.S. policy and Palestinian chagrin, against it. He is an accomplished pol -- a statement of both admiration and a bit of regret.

Obama is often likened to John F. Kennedy. It makes sense. He has the requisite physical qualities -- handsome, lean, etc. -- plus wit, intelligence, awesome speaking abilities and a literary bent. He also might be compared to Franklin D. Roosevelt for many of those same qualities. Both FDR and JFK were disparaged early on by their contemporaries for, I think, doing the difficult and making it look easy. Eleanor Roosevelt, playing off the title of Kennedy's Pulitzer Prize-winning book, airily dismissed him as more profile than courage. Similarly, it was Walter Lippmann's enduring misfortune to size up FDR and belittle him: Roosevelt, he wrote, was "a pleasant man who, without any important qualifications for office, would very much like to be president." Lippmann later recognized that he had underestimated Roosevelt.

My guess is that Obama will make a fool of anyone who issues such a judgment about him. Still, the record now, while tissue thin, is troubling. The next president will have to be something of a political Superman, a man of steel who can tell the American people that they will have to pay more for less -- higher taxes, lower benefits of all kinds -- and deal in an ugly way when nuclear weapons seize the imagination of madmen.

The question I posed to that prominent Democrat was just my way of thinking out loud. I know that Barack Obama is a near-perfect political package. I'm still not sure, though, what's in it.
---

Obama shortchanged injured troops
By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL
Associated Press
July 28, 2008

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Republican John McCain's campaign on Saturday sharply criticized Democratic rival Barack Obama for canceling a visit to wounded troops in Germany, contending Obama chose foreign leaders and cheering Europeans over "injured American heroes."

Obama's campaign called the accusation "wildly inappropriate." His spokesman has claimed that the visit to a military hospital in Germany was scrapped after the Pentagon raised concerns about political activity on a military base. Earlier, though, the campaign had said Obama decided the visit might be seen as inappropriate politicking. However, the Pentagon said the senator was never told not to visit.

A new McCain ad that began airing Saturday in selected markets also chides Obama as disrespectful for making "time to go to the gym" during his European visit while at the same time canceling the visit with wounded troops.

"Seems the Pentagon wouldn't allow him to bring cameras," according to the ad, which is being televised in Colorado, Pennsylvania and the Washington D.C. area. "John McCain is always there for our troops."

McCain himself joined in the rebuke, saying in an interview to be aired Sunday by ABC's "This Week" that "if I had been told by the Pentagon that I couldn't visit those troops, and I was there and wanted to be there, I guarantee you, there would have been a seismic event."

The McCain campaign's criticism came as it grappled for another day with the intense media attention focused on Obama's tour of the Middle East and Europe. The Arizona Republican had goaded Obama into visiting Iraq and Afghanistan, then watched as Obama's meetings with the leaders of those countries and Jordan, Israel, the Palestinians, Germany, France and Great Britain dominated the political news.

Responding, Obama campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor said Obama and McCain both believed that troops should be honored and noted that the Illinois senator had visited troops in Iraq and Afghanistan last week and had made numerous trips to Washington's Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Obama still didn't want injured soldiers "pulled into the back-and-forth of a political campaign," Vietor said in a statement.

"Senator McCain knows full well that Senator Obama strongly supports and honors our troops, which is what makes this attack so disingenuous. This politicization of our soldiers is exactly what Senator Obama sought to avoid," Vietor said.

Obama was flying from London to Chicago on Saturday when the McCain campaign issued a statement from Joe Repya, a retired Army colonel who said Obama had broken a commitment to visit the wounded Americans.

"Several explanations were offered, none was convincing and each was at odds with the statements of American military leaders," Repya said. "For a young man so apt at playing president, Barack Obama badly misjudged the important demands of the office he seeks."

On Thursday, the day Obama gave an evening address to an estimated 200,000 people in Berlin, his campaign issued two written statements about the canceled trip to Ramstein Air Base and the military hospital in Landstuhl, Germany. In the first, no mention was made of Pentagon misgivings, only that Obama "decided out of respect for these servicemen and women that it would be inappropriate to make a stop to visit troops at a U.S. military facility as part of a trip funded by the campaign." A second statement, by retired general and Obama adviser Scott Gration, mentioned the Pentagon's involvement.

Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters Friday that a trip from Berlin to Ramstein had been planned for weeks, with Obama expecting to leave most staff and reporters at the airport while he went to the hospital to avoid appearances of a campaign event. After the Pentagon raised concerns within two days of the visit, it was scrapped, he said.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said Obama would have been required to conform to the Defense Department prohibition of political activity, but that the senator was never told he couldn't visit the hospital.
---

McCain backs ban on affirmative action in Arizona
By CHRISTOPHER WILLS and KEVIN FREKING
Associated Press
July 28, 2008

CHICAGO (AP) -- Presidential candidate John McCain on Sunday endorsed a proposal to ban affirmative action programs in his home state, a policy that Democratic rival Barack Obama called a disappointing embrace of divisive tactics.

In the past, McCain has criticized such ballot initiatives.

In an interview that aired Sunday, McCain was asked whether he supported an effort to get a referendum on the ballot in Arizona that would do away with race and gender-based preferences, known as affirmative action.

"Yes, I do," said McCain in an interview on ABC's "This Week." The Republican senator quickly added that he had not seen the details of the proposal. "But I've always opposed quotas."

His reversal comes as McCain seeks to tailor his policies and rhetoric to independent-minded voters who will determine the outcome of November election. Both McCain and Obama have accused each other -- with good reason -- of "flip-flopping," a charge that carries weight with voters seeking consistency and authenticity in their political leaders.

Speaking to a conference of minority journalists on Sunday, Obama said he was "disappointed" by McCain's position.

"I think in the past he had been opposed to these kinds of Ward Connerly referenda or initiatives as divisive. And I think he's right," Obama said, referring to a leading critic of affirmative action.

Obama also said he has little interest in an official government apology for slavery or reparations for descendants of slaves. The government's focus, he said, should be on providing jobs, education and health for people still struggling today.

The proposed referendum in Arizona involves a constitutional amendment to bar preferential treatment by public entities on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin. Supporters say the measure levels the playing field, giving everyone an equal chance at every job.

A decade ago, McCain condemned initiatives aimed at dismantling affirmative action, though he stopped short of directly criticizing a resolution pending in the state legislature at the time.

"Rather than engage in divisive ballot initiatives, we must have a dialogue and cooperation and mutual efforts together to provide for every child in America to fulfill their expectations," McCain told Hispanic business leaders gathered in Washington in 1998.

A spokesman said in a statement that McCain has always opposed hiring quotes based on race. "He believes that regardless of race, ethnicity or gender, the law should be equally applied," the spokesman, Tucker Bounds, said.

Obama said Sunday that affirmative action is not a long-term solution to discrimination, and that it must not ignore the problems of poor whites. But affirmative action does address "some of the hardships and difficulties that communities of color may have experienced."

He also argued ballot initiatives like the one in Arizona rarely help people work together.

"You know, the truth of the matter is, these are not designed to solve a big problem, but they're all too often designed to drive a wedge between people," Obama said.

Obama was asked whether he supports an official government apology for slavery or the country's treatment of American Indians. He replied that he would discuss the idea with Indian leaders but that it is more important to provide services that will help people escape poverty and improve their lives. The same is true of an apology or reparations for slavery, he said.

"I'm much more interested in talking about, how do we get every child to learn? How do we get every person health care? How do we make sure that everybody has a job?" Obama said.

Note: remember that selecting anyone (even of priviledged races) on the basis of race is racism and discrimination against the other races. The people who were slaves (and this includes my wife's Asian relatives) and the people who did it are long dead, and it's about time we got over it! It's much easier to point our fingers and blame others for our own lack of success than it is to took a good look in the mirror. Affirmative action (for any race) is devisive because it treats one race preferentially as compared to the others -- not the other way around, and McCain knows that.


The Remedial Student
Donald Lambro
Wednesday, July 30, 2008

WASHINGTON -- Barack Obama, who went to Iraq in search of foreign-policy experience, came home last week sounding a bit more like John McCain.

After being told by a key tribal leader in Ramadi that "you have to keep Marines in our province because we still have problems," the freshman senator said he would leave a large U.S. military force in Iraq but that its size would be "entirely conditions-based."

McCain, happy as a schoolteacher whose remedial student suddenly seemed to be learning his lessons, couldn't have put it any better himself. "Barack Obama is ultimately articulating a position of sustained troop levels in Iraq based on the conditions on the ground and the security of the country. That is the very same position that John McCain has long held," said McCain representative Tucker Bounds.

The neophyte Senate lawmaker, still learning the ropes about war and national security, wouldn't say how large a force he would leave behind (though a chief adviser has proposed a residual army of between 60,000 to 80,000 American soldiers and personnel). But in a series of interviews with news organizations, Obama has spelled out the need for a sizable "counterterrorism strike force" and military troops to train the Iraqi army and police forces "to make them more effective."

How long are these U.S. troops going to be there? Well, Obama said, the Iraqis are "going to need our help for some time to come."

McCain and even some of Obama's top foreign-policy advisers have said it is ridiculous to be talking about the precise timing (within 16 months) and size of U.S. troop withdrawals because no one can foresee what the conditions will be on the ground next year, or the year after that.

Now it seems the man who won the Democratic presidential primaries by promising to end the war and bring the troops home is having some second, third and fourth thoughts about that.

"I do think that's entirely conditions-based," he told Newsweek. "It's hard to anticipate where we may be six months from now, or a year from now, or a year and a half from now."

It was the latest shift in Obama's continually shifting war policy on Iraq. First, he was going to pull all our forces out, then it was just combat forces, then it was most combat forces, with a residual force left behind. Now he is talking about a sizable strike force to deal with al-Qaeda terrorists, plus other U.S. forces for logistical support, intelligence activities, training and reconstruction -- all of whom are going to be there, he said, for a very long time.

Well, you get the picture. It is one of a woefully inexperienced politician who can't seem to make up his mind about what to do in a war that he said we were losing and that we are now winning. So he shifts day-to-day from one strategy to another, sending disturbing signals that he is in over his head and doesn't know what to do next.

McCain, who has led military forces, knows that in a time of war you cannot keep switching signals in the middle of the game. "We welcome this latest shift in Sen. Obama's position, but it is obvious that it was only a lack of experience and judgment that kept him from arriving at this position sooner," said Bound, the Arizona senator's spokesman, as Obama was flying home.

Thus, in the aftermath of his tutorial trip, doubts are growing about his judgment, and the news media is turning on him far more aggressively, questioning and ridiculing some of his stock answers on the war on terrorism. "Mr. Obama's account of his strategic vision remains eccentric," the liberal Washington Post editorialized last week.

He has repeatedly played down Iraq and said that Afghanistan is "the central front" where we had to focus our forces. "But there are no known al-Qaeda bases in Afghanistan ... While the United States has an interest in preventing the resurgence of the Afghan Taliban, the country's strategic importance pales beside that of Iraq, which lies at the geopolitical center of the Middle East and contains some of the world's largest oil reserves," the Post said.

The national news media gave boffo reviews to Obama's performance overseas, but America's voters seemed to be paying far more attention to what he said than the way he said it, or the size of the crowds who turned out to see and hear him.

Wary of Obama's chameleonlike positions and his willingness to say whatever pleases his audience, voters may be thinking he has changed his positions one too many times. Was this what he meant by change you can believe in?

Meanwhile, back home, the cash-rich Obama campaign was running nonstop TV ads in the key battleground states, hoping to move his polling numbers upward. But McCain strategists told me that their polls showed that his numbers hadn't budged in his target states. Indeed, Obama's poll numbers had slipped in four of them, according to a Quinnipiac survey of likely voters.

A USA Today/Gallup Poll said Monday that McCain had inched ahead of Obama by 4 points, 49 percent to 45 percent among likely voters. Instead of strengthening his foreign-policy credentials with his Middle East road show, Obama has deepened doubts in the minds of voters about his maturity and judgment.

The emerging choice in this election seems to be perseverance, resolve and steadiness on the one hand, and bait-and-switch on the other.
---

Barack's No Reagan
Brent Bozell III
Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Newsweek's love for Barack Obama knows no bounds. After Obama's speech in Berlin, Newsweek published a headline that suggests an editor who's spent six days drunk on a merry-go-round: "Obama's Reagan Moment." That deserves the Lloyd Bentsen retort: "I knew Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan was a friend of mine. Barack Obama is no Ronald Reagan."

The Newsweek piece sneered that while Obama and John Kennedy spoke to more than 100,000 people, Reagan spoke to a much smaller audience, "only about 20,000," and they were outnumbered by leftist protesters the night before. They recalled, "Even some of Reagan's aides were embarrassed by the 'tear down this wall' line, thinking it was too provocative or grandiose." Newsweek would concede only that "Reagan understood stagecraft," and communism's fall "made his words prescient."

In other words, the Gipper was a showboat who got lucky.

This is nothing more than Newsweek's continuing campaign to rewrite history. Back in 1987, Newsweek was not prescient. They came to bury Reagan's speech as a desperate gesture of a crumbling lame-duck presidency ruined by Iran-contra. Their story on his trip began: "Ronald Reagan wasn't the only lame duck at the economic summit in Venice last week, and he wasn't the only allied leader to nod off when the proceedings turned soporific."

Newsweek chronicled Reagan's woes, then declared how only Mikhail Gorbachev could restore luster to the old man: "It is the ultimate paradox of Reagan's lifelong opposition to all things communist that a U.S.-Soviet arms agreement and a third summit with Gorbachev offer the best, and perhaps last, hope for reinvigorating his presidency." They saw Reagan with a foolish career of "opposition to all things communist" turning to Gorbachev as his savior, and painted Gorbachev as more persuasive and attractive to Europe. The magazine geniuses at the time seemed to adore Gorby as if he were ... Barack Obama.

At least Newsweek in 1987 (but not in 2008) chronicled what Reagan told the pro-Soviet protesters there at the end of his speech: "I wonder if they have ever asked themselves that if they should have the kind of government they apparently seek, no one would ever be able to do what they're doing again."

But Reagan's rhetorical daring in his time marks why Obama's Berlin remarks sounded so phony. He declared: "People of the world -- look at Berlin, where a wall came down, a continent came together, and history proved that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one. If we could win a battle of ideas against the communists, we can stand with the vast majority of Muslims who reject the extremism that leads to hate instead of hope."

No adoring anchorman dared to ask: Who, precisely, Sen. Obama, is the "we" who won a battle of ideas against communism? Who was the "we" who dared to insist that liberty was the superior ideal, that "Freedom is the victor," and to demand that the walls of Soviet tyranny should fall? It was not America as a whole. It was certainly not Europe as a whole. To publicly declare such a bold wish for an end to the Soviet empire, to denounce the Berlin Wall as a "scar" across Berlin, and a "gash of barbed wire, concrete, dog runs and guard towers" was seen by the international left, and the Democrats, and the press corps here at home as undiplomatic saber-rattling. It was, to quote the Hillary Clintons of the world, "cowboy diplomacy."

Barack Obama is an arrogant pretender to a throne he has not earned. He wanted to stand at the Brandenburg Gate like Reagan, grasping desperately for a chance to look presidential. But he hasn't in any way demonstrated Reagan's resolve against America's enemies. Instead, this power-hungry newbie has stood in about seven different places in the last four years on the primary controversy of our time.

In 2002, he opposed the Iraq war from the pews of his America-deserved-9/11 church. In 2004, he stood staunchly and very temporarily by John Kerry's vote for war. In 2006, he calculated that the best way to win the Democratic nomination was to play kissy-kissy with Code Pink and channel MoveOn.org's demand that the president acknowledge all was lost in Iraq. Now, having defeated all those Democratic suckers who voted for war, he's developing yet another position, that the success of the surge means that he didn't have to be right about the surge or anything else, that the country is now ready for a rapid withdrawal of forces.

Ronald Reagan was willing to endure an entire career being mocked by the press and the political intelligentsia for standing firmly in one bunker of a war of ideas. Barack Obama has demonstrated only one cause, one idea he consistently believes in. Its name is Barack Obama.
---

Comment from Blog:

The AJC is no surprise

The state of Georgia, as a state, has been sliding deeper and deeper into a heavily legislated and taxed state with a huge State Bureaucracy as well as county bureaucracies as Georgia ran headlong, beginning in the mid to late 1970's to more and more mimic the Federal Model of Socialism. The larger Atlanta grew, so did it's city and country governments, until it had mimicked New York, Chicago, LA, Philadelphia, Washington D.C. and became the most overtaxed and over-legislated place in the south.

This type of bureaucratic insanity began in earnest in the mid-1960's when LBJ declared his so-called "War on Poverty" and the huge Federal Bureaucracy began to expand exponentially and has ultimately destroyed a work ethic for many and pride, self respect, and family values for many who were wooed into the Entitlement Mentatlity. The states began getting Federal Mandates to mimic the federal model, and government has grown and grown until we now have the current mess in Atlanta, and every other large bureaucratic city and the nation at large. Politicians found that they could get elected over and over, the more poverty programs they expanded and enlisting new welfare recipients who became voters.

To get elected in any Socialist city or state, all you have to do is promise more welfare spending, and voters line up as if in any line where you say, "we are giving more money away." This is the Liberal Democrat strategy and they keep getting elected, especially in large cities where many citizens depend on government for everything such as rent, food, medical care, utility bills, etc,, and get cash to boot to buy cars with flashy wheels, Boom Boxes, Bling, Bling, drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, the latest Nikes, etc. So, it is no wonder none of these folks care to get a real job. They have more disposable CASH than the average worker who has to pay his or her own way as well as pay taxes to Support The Liberal Democrat Give Away Programs.

This is the same Platform Obama is Running on. Better get out and Vote No to his Tax and Spend Democrat. You think it is bad now, you have no idea how bad it can get.


A Black Conservative Lament
Larry Elder
Thursday, July 31, 2008

columnistsElder

Oh, no, not another "blacks in America" news special! One of the cable networks recently put together another one of these "specials" on what it's like to be black in America. The network asked a conservative friend of mine to participate. He sent the following letter; and I wrote back.

Dear Larry,

OK, Larry, I grew up a bit last night. Those (unflattering descriptive deleted) at that news network on cable used me like a two-dollar whore! I interviewed with them for almost 10 hours, and all that talk was whittled down into five-second sound bites that put me in a rather negative light. Part of our talk was about the crack epidemic. I spoke about the way we are fighting this drug war, which we should approach as a health issue as opposed to a law enforcement problem. I talked about the impact single parenthood has on crime rates. I talked and talked. They edited it all down to, "If you don't want to go to jail, don't sell crack." I am really angry.

The "wretched blackness" slant was so clear. I was on live for the half-hour preceding the beginning of the program. They ran a long segment with a black comedian/actor, talking about how he tells his son each and every day about how to talk to the police and how black men must be wary of cops. They cut to me, and I said that I was certainly in agreement that we need to talk to our children about respecting authority, but I also wondered if the comedian/actor talked to his son about the proper color shirt to wear in case some knuckleheads have a dislike of the color red or blue. The truth is that his son has more to fear from other young black men than he does from the police. I then quoted a homicide statistic: 94 percent of black homicide victims are killed by other black people. It was dismissed by the moderator so we could focus instead on how racist the cops are. Unbelievable.

It should not surprise me, then, that producers and editors would give liberal, hypersensitive blacks room to make their points -- even if they were factually untrue. They spoke to a professor from Columbia, who was droning on about how the legacy of slavery is to account for blacks' out-of-wedlock birthrate. Slavery?! This nonsense was seconded by another panelist. When I corrected them and said that the out-of-wedlock rate was lower during Jim Crow eyes began rolling, and my point was ignored in order to move on. And I was reduced to sound bites.

Had to vent a bit.

--Your friend.

Dear friend,

My sister-in-law, an almost-recovered victicrat (thanks, at least in part, to me) called me during the show. She asked whether I was watching it, and I said no -- I knew what to expect. BMW -- bitching, moaning and whining.

I asked my sister-in-law why they didn't spend four hours on the "experience" of Chinese-Americans? Americans of Chinese heritage are among our country's most successful -- despite being the first ethnic group to be specifically excluded from legal immigration to America, by laws enacted in 1882, and despite mistreatment and discrimination including many anti-Chinese laws passed in places like San Francisco, which were designed to protect the "native" laundry business.

Why doesn't the cable network, I asked her, do a show on the "experience" of Japanese-Americans, also some of the most prosperous of all Americans -- despite the World War II "relocation" camps and California's anti-Japanese laws, once passed to prevent them from owning farmland?

I don't compare this in kind or in degree to slavery, but it's 2008 -- with a black man possibly on the brink of attaining the presidency of the United States. Can we move on? The problems of the "black community" have to do with the welfare-state-induced breakdown (or, more accurately, non-formation) of the family. This causes a disinterest in education, and leads to poor values, reckless and irresponsible breeding, as well as a lack of the job skills necessary in an information-age society. We also have grievance groups -- black "leaders"; the oh-so-sympathetic media; fear- and guilt-laden whites who refuse to say (as they do to their own children) work hard and play by the rules; and many reluctant blacks who refuse to preach the message of "no excuses, hard work" for fear of being labeled "Uncle Toms."

I told my sister-in-law that nearly half of Harvard's black freshman class consists of blacks from the Caribbean or Africa -- areas less prosperous with far less opportunity. Care to explain that?

I told her that I bet many of the "talking heads" live comfortable middle-class lives or better -- some, no doubt several, tenured college professors who, not so deep down, believe that they were smart enough or worked hard enough to have made it, but the other poor SOBs, well, they need a more compassionate government, a less racist society to pull them through.

So, try to relax. Thanks to editing, they can make anyone sound like Elmer Fudd.

Larry
---

The Brangelina-fication of the Obamas
Michelle Malkin
Wednesday, July 30, 2008

columnistsMalkin

You couldn't pass a grocery store line this weekend without seeing the picture-perfect smiles of the Obama family. There were Barack Obama's young daughters (whose privacy their parents so sanctimoniously claim to want to protect) flashing their pearly whites on the cover of People magazine. Malia and Sasha competed for attention right next to Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie's toddler daughter, Shiloh, whose cherubic face was splashed on the cover of another celebrity tabloid. Next to them beamed basket-case starlet Lindsay Lohan and her new lesbian lover -- oh, and that formerly pregnant "man" who just gave birth to a baby girl.

The Obamas blended seamlessly into this Hollyweird pop culture galaxy.

The spread in People, which earlier this year fawned over a photo of the bare-chested Obama in his swimsuit, was supposed to be an "exclusive" first and last look at life at home with the Obamas. Knowing what we know about the Obama we know now, it probably won't be the last.

They've hawked the kids to TV gossip show "Access Hollywood," blabbed about their romance to Us Weekly magazine, and plopped Michelle O -- the purported "civilian" whom the Obamessiah declares immune from public criticism -- in front of the cameras to schmooze effortlessly for "The Colbert Report" and "The View" demographics. They believe their two-faced tabloid strategy (show their true elitist colors behind closed doors, but play the Every Family for the Obamedia sycophants) is working. Given our dumbed-down, celebrity-obsessed culture, they are probably right.

Who cares about Barack's perilous lack of foreign policy experience, his longtime associations with left-wing radicals and domestic terrorists, and his business dealings with Chicago corruptocrats? People magazine brings you the scoop on what really matters in this critical presidential campaign: Michelle hula-hoops with her daughters. They're just like you and me! The kids have slumber parties. They're just like you and me! Barack does laundry, but he doesn't fold it. They're just like you and me! The kids get small allowances. They're just like you and me! The Obamas wear normal clothes while doing normal things.

THEY'RE JUST LIKE YOU AND ME!

There's a popular feature in most gossip magazines that rates celebrities as "normal" vs. "not normal" or "diva" vs. "down to earth." This is supposed to humanize the stars and make celebrity followers feel better about their empty idol worship. Paparazzi catch "normal" famous people in candid moments -- taking out the trash, scarfing down hot dogs, goofing around with their kids at the playground -- and magazine editors compare them to photos of "not normal" celebs in elitist repose -- walking with their umbrella carriers, surrounded by seven bodyguards and three nannies, boarding their Gulfstreams, etc.

The fatal flaw in the tabloids' Obamas-as-next-door-neighbors propaganda, of course, is that unlike the candid shots of normal, down-to-earth celebrities without makeup or entourages, the photos of the Obamas in "normal" mode are all carefully choreographed fauxtographs.

While Snobama complains about "bitter" rural voters who "cling" to their guns and religion and moans about the price of arugula in his candid unscripted moments, JustLikeYou&Me Michelle cunningly brags about buying her sundresses at discount retailer H&M and, with studied casualness, tells reporters that she doesn't mind if the kids' beds aren't perfectly made. Uh-huh.

The Obamas do everything but pick their noses for the cameras to mimic Real People bona fides. The Obamedia stenographers in the celebrity press -- and the mainstream press, for that matter -- eat it up. And so do the American people. Former Star magazine editor Bonnie Fuller, citing a poll showing that more adults would like to invite Obama to a summer barbecue than McCain, hailed the Obamas in Advertising Age as the "Brangelina of the political world."

Obama and his political paparazzi are banking on people's stupidity and his cult of personality to carry him to the White House. Unfortunately, the odds are in his favor. Just try talking to one of the millions of people with their noses buried in People or Us about Obama's relationship with Jeremiah Wright or Bill Ayers, his flip-flops on the Iraq war surge and his reckless naivete regarding Iran, and you'll see what I mean.

The exclamation of a journalist at the UNITY minority news media gathering this weekend sums up the star-struck reverence that fuels the Obama phenomenon: "He touched me!" And yet, he's sooo "down to earth."

Hurtling toward a government of the stupid, by the stupid, for the stupid we go.

[Note: Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large numbers -- particularly in a country that is governed by the majority, and the majority is stupid and elects stupid leaders who pass stupid laws! The state of this country makes a good argument for a government by a council of elders -- or at least by people who have studied and understand history. Most people have little knowledge of the principles this country was founded upon -- that we had a war because we wanted the right to be DIFFERENT than other countries, and do not even know the hallmarks, advantages, disadvantages of the various forms of government (such as republics, democracies, communism, socialism, Marxism, etc.) and either don't know or have totally forgotten the mistakes of the past -- yet these ignorant people are the ones who elect our ignorant leaders, who in turn pass laws without even reading most of them, much less knowing the ramifications of them!]


Obama's War Party
Terence Jeffrey
Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Barack Obama has joined the party of war.

Since it became clear that he would be the Democratic presidential nominee, Obama has left behind his peacenik rhetoric and seems eager to inform anyone who will listen that as president he would escalate U.S. military intervention -- in Afghanistan.

Last week, immediately after completing his first-ever trip to Afghanistan, Obama made a pronouncement from that most sacred of liberal precincts, the op-ed page of The New York Times.

"As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan," he wrote. "We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there."

In other words, Obama would order a surge -- in Afghanistan.

This week, Obama repeated his call for a surge when he appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press."

"It was clear to me that Afghanistan is the central front on terror, that the Taliban and al-Qaida have reconstituted themselves," he said. "We're going to need two additional brigades in Afghanistan, and we've got to work with Pakistan to get serious about these terrorists safe havens."

Not long after Obama spoke, a suspected U.S. missile, suspected to be under orders from President Bush, smashed into the suspected Pakistani house of al-Qaida's suspected chemical-and-biological weapons man, who is now suspected to be posthumously appreciating the realization that his safe haven was not as safe as either he or Obama believed.

What was most revealing about Obama's statement on "Meet the Press," however, was Obama's implicit concession that the United States is in a multi-front war. He did say, after all, that "Afghanistan is the central front on terror." He did not say it was the only front.

So, now that we know Obama will order a surge in Afghanistan, Americans need to ponder what tactics he is likely to employ on other fronts and how likely it is that the sum of these tactics will add up to a strategic U.S. victory.

What is a U.S. victory? Simply this: Stopping Islamic terrorists from ever again perpetrating mass murder on U.S. soil.

This has been President Bush's primary aim ever since Sept. 11, 2001. And no matter what else Bush's critics say about him, there is one thing they cannot say: He allowed Islamic terrorists to hit our homeland again.

In the almost seven years since Sept. 11, 2001, Islamic terrorists have failed to carry out a single attack inside our country.

Bush has achieved this success by unflinching use of multitudinous aggressive tactics. He won congressional authorization for a war in Afghanistan and invaded that country. He won congressional authorization for a war in Iraq and invaded that country, too. He secured passage of the PATRIOT Act and made use of the greater latitude it gave law enforcement to track potential terrorists inside the United States. He ordered warrantless wiretaps of international communications in and out of the United States when a suspected terrorist was a party to the communication. He ordered that terrorists be tried by military tribunals. He ordered captured terrorists held at a prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He ordered the occasional use of aggressive interrogation techniques, including (in a few circumstances) water-boarding.

He drove the surviving leaders of al-Qaida into an uncomfortable corner of Pakistan where each night they must wonder if the next suspected U.S. missile will crash into their "safe haven."

To be sure, Bush has made some mistakes. Invading Iraq in the first place may have been one of them. But the end consequence of Bush's aggressive approach is manifest in a result few would have predicted on Sept. 11, 2001: For seven years, he has kept us, our children and our neighborhoods safe. The essence of Barack Obama's and the Democrats' complaint against Bush is that he did too much in the war on terror -- except in Afghanistan. There, they complain, he did too little.

For Obama and the Democrats, Bush water-boarded too many Khalid Sheikh Mohammads, imprisoned too many in Guantanamo, made too many arguments against granting terrorists access to federal courts, authorized too many warrantless international wiretaps, made too much use of the PATRIOT Act and put too many troops in Iraq.

To prove they are not appeasers, they want more troops in Afghanistan.

But leaving aside Afghanistan, where Obama and the Democrats are now committed to becoming the war party, an all-Democratic government led by Obama can be counted on to use fewer aggressive tactics against Islamic terrorists than President Bush did.

We can only hope they don't end up using one tactic too few.


Regarding Obama and Change: If Obama gets elected, the only thing that will be left in your pockets is change!

He's Not a Muslim -- He's a Marxist!

Obama '08, Osama '09!


New Slogans For Barack Obama
Ben Shapiro
Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Barack Obama's messianic tour of Europe is over. And, like Jesus, he has risen again -- in the polls. According to Gallup's daily tracking poll, Obama is now up 8 percent among registered voters. According to Rasmussen, his lead is a whopping three points. (According to USA Today/Gallup, John McCain actually leads Obama among likely voters by 4 percent. But God knows that Jesus' poll numbers are always vacillating, too.)

Obama's return has meant jubilation in the streets. Demure virgins wave palm fronds over the triumphant conqueror as he wanders the highways and byways of the campaign trail. Obama gracefully offers them water bottles when they are overcome -- and they are miraculously healed.

Obama has it all. All except for one thing: a new slogan. Hope and change are all well and good, but they seem tired. After a year and a half, hope and change begin to wear thin, despite the Holy One's profound enunciation of those shallow incantations.

And so I, a humble member of a planet dedicated to the glory and power of Barack Obama, offer the following suggestions:

When Experience, Knowledge and Honor Just Aren't Good Enough. Vote Obama.

Hope. Change. And All That Other BS. Vote Obama.

More Experience Than a Fifth Grader. Vote Obama.

Standing Up For the Power of Horse Manure. Vote Obama.

Talking Big. Doing Nothing. Vote Obama.

This Election Is All About You. Voting for Me. Vote Obama.

Sure, I Remember Voting In the Senate That One Time. Vote Obama.

Kim Jung Il, Hamas and Fidel Castro Can't Be Wrong. Vote Obama.

Pass the Arugula. Vote Obama.

You Say Corrupt Land Deal. I Say Creative Financing. Potaytoe, Potahtoe. Vote Obama.

Like Black People? Vote Obama.

The Man With The Iraq Plan. Yeah, The Plan That Didn't Work. So What, Racist? Vote Obama.

Flag Pins Are Stupid. But I'm Not Unpatriotic. You Racist. Vote Obama.

Don't Like My Pastor? Shut Up, Racist. Still Don't Like Him? I Guess I Don't, Either. Vote Obama.

Watch the Oceans Recede. Watch the World Make Peace. And Watch As I Saw This Woman In Half! Vote Obama.

Fooling All of the People All of the Time. Vote Obama.

Cut Military Funding. Dictators Are Nice. Vote Obama.

Yes We Can. Or Rather, I Can. Vote Obama.

Barack Obama will not adopt any of these slogans any time soon, I admit. But here's the irony -- he could adopt such slogans and still win the election. That's because his followers do not hear a word he says. They watch him wave his arms; they scream and cheer as he fist-bumps his wife; they keel over in the aisles when he coughs, and jump up and down when he sneezes. He's part Neville Chamberlain, part Rolling Stones. His devotees are all moonstruck teenyboppers.

Back in March, Obama spoke in Wisconsin. "People question if words matter," he thundered. "Words do matter. Words challenge us to reach higher. Words are a catalyst for change and words motivate us to chase our dreams." Obama was wrong. When it comes to his campaign, words don't matter in the slightest. Obama could perform mime, and his followers would applaud wildly. All that matters is the Obama persona. And that persona doesn't rely on words, ideas or policies. It relies on stupidity. And where his followers are concerned, stupidity is in no short supply.


Obama says that lifting the prohibition against offshore drilling will "merely prolong the failed energy policies we have seen from Washington for 30 years."
 
Now that it costs over $4.00 per gallon for gasoline at the pump, Americans are starting to realize that we are, in actuality, finally starting to pay the price for 30 years of failed energy policies!

 For 30 years our own government has PROHIBITED us from drilling for much of our own oil offshore... our own government has PROHIBITED us from drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)... our own government has placed us in the position of having to import oil -- in many cases from countries hostile to the United States.

 And now -- as Barack Hussein Obama's longtime friend and pastor Jeremiah Wright would say:  "America's chickens are coming home to roost."

When President Bush courageously offered to lift  the executive ban on offshore drilling last week, he was, in fact, REVERSING years of "failed energy policies."

So how, in the name of all that is holy, can Barack Hussein Obama declare that REVERSING 30 years of failed liberal energy policies will "merely prolong the failed energy policies we have seen from Washington for 30 years."

It's a little reminiscent of George Orwell's 1984.

"War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength."

Add to that; 'Reversing 30 years of failed energy policies will merely prolong the failed energy policies of 30 years.'

To make matters worse, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi have thus far succeeded in BLOCKING fair up-or-down votes in Congress on releasing legislative prohibitions against offshore drilling.

And then they patted themselves on the back for a job well-done... adjourned Congress... and went on vacation!

It should be clear by now that Pelosi and Reid will continue to BLOCK and OBSTRUCT, hoping that their man, Barack Hussein Obama, makes it to the White House so they can enact even MORE failed energy policies to drive the price of gasoline at the pump up even HIGHER and further ENSLAVE us to foreign oil!

No We Can't!

On the campaign trail, Barack Hussein Obama is fond of chanting "Yes We Can" but when it comes to taking real steps to alleviate the financial suffering of average Americans he's really saying, 'No We Can't!'

Here's what Senator Jon Kyl recently said:

"'Dr. No,' or as we in the Senate are referring to it, as a mantra of 'No, we can't.' No, we can't drill offshore. No, we can't drill the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico. No, we can't do oil shale. Of course, he said he's not a proponent of nuclear [energy], so no, we can't do that. He's even said, 'No, we shouldn't do a reward for the technology improvement for a battery that would allow people to use those kind of vehicles.' It's a very negative approach, which basically says there are no answers to the hurt that Americans are suffering right now."

The McCain campaign was quick to jump on the bandwagon.  McCain campaign spokesman Brian Rogers said:

"It's just very clear at this point that Senator Obama is Dr. No on energy security. Today it was 'no' on the $300 million for a new kind of battery. Before it was 'no' on further exploration or possibility of further exploration of our coasts. It was 'no' on gas tax relief that can help this summer families that are hurting. It's 'no' on expanded nuclear power investments that we can make."

Why is Barack Hussein Obama "Dr. No" when it comes to a real energy policy that will free us from the grip of foreign oil and lower the prices at the pump for all Americans?

And why are Reid and Pelosi frantically OBSTRUCTING and BLOCKING a fair up-or-down vote on offshore drilling?

The answer to that question is simple:  If they allowed a vote to actually occur, many Democrats would cave-in and actually vote for the measure!

They don't want that to happen! 

But if you put on the pressure, IT WILL!

It's About The Socialism, Stupid!

Meanwhile, some Democrats in Congress have made it abundantly clear what they're really after.

Recently, Congressman Maurice Hinchey called for the "Nationalization" of Oil Refineries:

"Maybe they'd be willing to have these companies owned publicly... owned by the people of the United States."

Congresswoman Maxine Waters recently flubbed a statement on the floor of the House which is being played over and over again on the Internet website YouTube:

"This liberal (talking about herself) will be all about SOCIAL____ (stops and stammers) uhhhh... uhhh... will be about... (stops again) basically taking over and the government running all your companies."

If Hinchey didn't make it clear, Waters did; she had to stop herself from actually saying the word, but it's clear that she's talking about SOCIALISM!

Republican Congressman Adam Putnam also made it abundantly clear when he made reference to Hinchey and Water's comments:

"Last month, one of Speaker Nancy Pelosi's fellow California Democrats said she would be 'all about socializing' and 'taking over' the oil companies. Just two weeks ago, another senior House Democrat said the 'government should own the refineries.'"

"... Socializing, nationalizing and driving small cars. It's enough to make you think they attended the Hugo Chavez School of Capitalism."

And as for Barack Hussein Obama; his views appear to be consistent with the increasingly overt Socialism that seems to be infecting the Democratic Party!

The Wall Street Journal recently wrote:

"He supports punitive new windfall profits taxes on Big Oil, which won't do anything for supply; as well as at least $10 billion a year in new subsidies for 'alternative' energy technologies, which may take years or decades to pan out, if they ever do."

Political analyst Dick Morris recently wrote:

"The [Democratic] Party basically doesn't believe in carbon based energy and, therefore, opposes oil exploration. That's why Obama pushes the windfall profits tax on oil companies - a step that tells them 'you drill, you find oil, and we'll take away your profits.' But Americans have their priorities in order: more oil, more drilling AND alternative energy sources, flex-fuel cars, plug in vehicles and nuclear power."

And let's not forget what else Obama recently said:

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK.... That's not leadership. That's not going to happen."

Let's recap.  Government ownership of private industry... Suffering, sacrifice  and depravation for average people... Aggressive new taxes on profits which the government redistributes as it sees fit?

That's SOCIALISM! And SOCIALISM is something the American people don't need!

Exposing the Real Obama Agenda!

When it comes to Obama's real agenda on energy policy, perhaps, Ann Coulter said it best years ago:

"When the free market does the exact thing liberals have been itching to do through taxation, they pretend to be appalled by high gas prices, hoping the public will forget that high gas prices are part of their agenda."

Coulter again:

"I would be more interested in what the Democrats had to say about high gas prices if these were not the same people who refused to let us drill for oil in Alaska, imposed massive restrictions on building new refineries, and who shut down the development of nuclear power in this country decades ago."

"But it's too much having to watch Democrats wail about the awful calamity to poor working families of having to pay high gas prices.

"Imposing punitive taxation on gasoline to force people to ride bicycles has been one of the left's main policy goals for years.

"For decades Democrats have been trying to raise the price of gasoline so that the working class will stop their infernal car-driving and start riding on buses where they belong, while liberals ride in Gulfstream jets."

ExposeObama.com is the only nationwide organization at the forefront of the movement to Expose the REAL Barack Hussein Obama to the American people.

We're not backing-down when it comes to taking the fight for the hearts and minds of the American people to Barack Hussein Obama!

But we're not just going to Expose the Farce that is Obama's Energy Policy! We're going to do something to stop it!

Below is a sample email that you are welcome to copy and paste into emails to your federal legislators. If you'd like to use a convenient emailer that looks up your senators and congressmen, lets you paste your message in and sends it to all of them at once, go here and fill in your zip code ("Search by Zip Code"), click "Go", then on the new page, click on "Compose Your Own Message"): http://capwiz.com/atr/home/ 


Subject: Drill Offshore! Drill Now

President Bush recently announced that he would lift a long-standing executive order banning offshore oil drilling and he challenged Congress to do the same!

Specifically President Bush said: "When Congress lifts the legislative ban, I will lift the executive prohibition... The only thing standing between the American people and these vast oil resources is action from the U.S. Congress. Now the ball is squarely in Congress' court... For years, my administration has been calling on Congress to expand domestic oil production.  Unfortunately, Democrats on Capitol Hill have rejected virtually every proposal. And now Americans are paying at the pump." 

And what did Congress do with the ball?  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi immediately blocked fair up-or-down votes in Congress on releasing legislative prohibitions against offshore drilling. And then -- to add insult to injury --  they adjourned Congress on went on vacation!

Stop the stalls and stop the obstruction.  The American people understand that prohibitions against drilling for oil domestically for years have put us in our present situation and with each passing day, the mantra of "we can't drill our way out of this crisis" sounds more and more foolish and obstructionist!  Democrats have no excuse to continue the obstruction.  The American people are tired of paying for this foolishness and obstruction at the pump!  Lift the ban!  Make it your first order of business!


Pelosi Blocks Gas Price Relief
By Henry Lamb
July 29, 2008

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told CNN that she would block any vote to allow offshore drilling. This remarkable stance comes in the face of the latest poll that says 73 percent of Americans favor offshore drilling, while only 27 percent oppose it. Nancy Pelosi again displays her contempt for her employer, the American people. Her arrogance and wrong-headed philosophy have led Congress to an approval rating of a staggering 14 percent, the lowest ever.

The arguments she advances in defense of her position are, at best, silly, and at worst, devious. She says she will not allow additional reserves to be drilled because oil companies already hold leases on 68 million acres of federal land that are not being drilled. She ignores the testimony of oil company representatives who tell her that had they found oil under these lands, they would be pumping it. The oil companies need to drill where the oil is.

There is plenty of oil to drill. Known reserves offshore, in Alaska, the Bakken fields of North Dakota and Montana, and elsewhere, can meet the energy demand for at least 100 years. But Pelosi and her colleagues don't want this oil produced. Pelosi says that it will take 10 years for this new oil supply to reach the pump, and then, it would reduce the price by only two-cents per gallon. This price projection is pure fiction.

As an alternative, she says the president should release 70 million barrels of oil from the strategic reserves, which would provide immediate price relief. Is this silly, stupid, or just more of Pelosi's political doublespeak? This alternative would supply less than four days of the U.S. demand, which would not likely even be noticed at the pump. It would do nothing to solve the underlying problem of too little supply.

Pelosi, like Al Gore, wants to end America's reliance on oil, and switch to new, exotic, yet-to-be-developed energy sources such as wind, solar, hydrogen, and in particular, electric cars. America has been investing heavily in research in all these areas for years. Some significant progress has been made. No one in their right mind -- which includes Al Gore -- can think this new technology can be available within the next ten years, with enough distribution to make hydrogen filling stations and recharging for electric cars viable options. It is certain, however, that by developing known oil reserves, the U.S. energy demand can be met in 10 years, or less.

There is a big disconnect between the rush to convert automobiles to batteries, and the reality that the electricity to recharge those batteries would require a massive new generating capacity. The same flawed excuse of "protecting the environment," has also blocked the expansion of electricity generating capacity. If the self-appointed gods of environmental protection won't allow the expansion of electricity generation, how are the batteries of all these new electric vehicles going to be recharged every night?

Another major disconnect between the rush to replace oil with renewable sources such as wind and solar is the negative environmental impact of these renewable technologies. For example, to replace a single 50-megawatt coal-fired generating plant, which may occupy as much as 20 acres of land, approximately 3,000 acres of land would have to be occupied by wind turbines. To produce 50-megawatts of electricity from solar panels would virtually cover even more land. How can these protectors of the environment justify blanketing the land with whirling bird-killers and solar panels that block the sun from all forms of life beneath them?

Some environmental purists genuinely want America and the world to return to the stone-age. Nancy Pelosi is no environmental purist. She is a political creature, which is a person so intoxicated by power that the instinct to retain and expand it overwhelms common sense, logic, ethics, morality, or anything else that might get in the way.

By her refusal to even allow debate on proposals to expand oil development -- where oil is known to exist -- she stands like a barricade between thirsty consumers and a new mountain stream. She apparently sees herself as a self-appointed savior; she is, in truth, acting as judge and jury, condemning a nation desperate for more energy to spiraling energy costs for possibly another generation.

This is not a new posture for Democrat leadership. Democrats in the House, the Senate, and the White House have blocked expansion of oil supplies for more than a decade. Had Bill Clinton not vetoed the bill that would have opened the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge more than a decade ago, gas prices would not be as high as they are today. Millions of jobs would have been created, and every American could have saved the money needlessly paid to foreign sources for oil, simply because one man played God and defied the express will of the people.

Nancy Pelosi is now playing God, standing where Bill Clinton stood more than a decade ago, defying the expressed will of the people by blocking access to the known oil reserves that are so desperately needed by the entire nation.


 
 
  Site Map