Lessons in Government - Page 6

Written by Dr. Jack Wheeler

The O-man, Barack Hussein Obama, is an eloquently tailored empty suit. No resume, no accomplishments, no experience, no original ideas, no understanding of how the economy works, no understanding of how the world works, no gumption, nothing but abstract empty rhetoric devoid of real substance.

He has no real identity. He is half-white, which he rejects. The rest of him is mostly Arab, which he hides but is disclosed by his non-African Arabic surname and his Arabic first and middle names as a way to triply proclaim his Arabic parentage to people in Kenya. Only a small part of him is African Black from his Luo grandmother, which he pretends he is exclusively.

What he isn't, not a genetic drop of, is 'African-American,' the descendant of enslaved Africans brought to America chained in slave ships. He hasn't a single ancestor who was a slave. Instead, his Arab ancestors were slave owners. Slave-trading was the main Arab business in East Africa for centuries until the British ended it.

Let that sink in: Obama is not the descendant of slaves; he is the descendant of slave owners. Thus he makes the perfect Liberal Messiah.

It's something Hillary doesn't understand - how some complete neophyte came out of the blue and stole the Dem nomination from her. Obamamania is beyond politics and reason. It is a true religious cult, whose adherents reject Christianity yet still believe in Original Sin, transferring it from the evil of being human to the evil of being white.

Thus Obama has become the white liberals' Christ, offering
absolution from the Sin of Being White. There is no reason or logic behind it, no faults or flaws of his can diminish it, no
Arguments Hillary could make of any kind can be effective against it. The absurdity of Hypocrisy Clothed in Human Flesh being their Savior is all the more cause for liberals to worship him: Credo quia absurdum, I believe it because it is absurd.

Thank heavens that the voting majority of Americans remain
Christian and are in no desperate need of a phony savior.

His candidacy is ridiculous and should not be taken seriously by any thinking American.
Pass this on to every thinking American you know!

And If Obama Loses?
by Patrick J. Buchanan
Posted 08/29/2008 ET

DENVER -- After the phony roll call vote was taken here to formally nominate Barack Obama -- a roll call that did not remotely reflect the true delegate strength of Hillary -- the media exploded in an orgy of celebration about the historic character of the moment to which they had just been privileged to be witness.

"The first black presidential nominee ever of a major party in history!" was proclaimed. Coming on the 45th anniversary of Dr. King's "I Have a Dream" speech, Barack's nomination is being hailed as the last great step forward in the long march to equality and justice in America.

The moral pressure to join the march of history is enormous.

Nor is it unfair to say that some journalists here are obsessed with the issue of race in this campaign. There may be wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, rising tensions with Russia, a falling regime in Pakistan, and reports of U.S. and NATO warships headed for the Persian Gulf, but here it is all about the first black ever nominated for president.

During the primaries, Bill Clinton was charged with racism by liberal Democrats for saying that Barack's claim to being consistent on Iraq was a "fairy tale" and for implying that Barack's victory in South Carolina was no big deal because Jesse Jackson had carried the state twice.

Here at the convention, the media watched Hillary and Bill's speeches with a commissar's care -- to ensure they not only embraced Barack but "validated" his credentials to be president. Should they not go all out for Obama, we are told, the Clintons are dead in the party.

The psychic investment in Barack's candidacy is immense.

So great is the moral pressure to conform that John Lewis, the young hero of Selma Bridge, buckled and recanted his endorsement of Hillary. And that act of disloyalty and betrayal, a capitulation to race solidarity, is regarded as praiseworthy.

Black radio has become a cheering section for Obama. Every GOP ad mocking Obama is inspected for racial motives. Campaign books that portray Obama as a radical or phony are denounced by people who have not even seen them. The thought police are out in force.

Michelle Obama's speech about her upbringing and beliefs -- crafted by Barack's hires -- is said to be the last word on what a mainstream patriotic woman she is. But why, then, would she have taken her two lovely daughters to be baptized by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and to listen on Sundays to his racist rants against America?

Abroad, we are told, Europe and the Third World are awaiting the moment when America turns her back on her racist past and elevates this black man to the presidency. The subtext is that this is not just a political contest, but a moral test for America.

Indeed, many have begun to see this election in solely racial terms, an issue of whether racism once again triumphs in America, or racism is buried one and for all.

Questions arise. With this immense moral and emotional investment in a Barack victory -- by 94 to 1 in one poll black America is behind him -- what happens if the nation decides he is too radical, too inexperienced, too callow, too risky to be president?

What happens if the American people reject their marching orders and say no to Barack and black America? What happens if all the hopes and dreams, hype and hoopla, end in disillusionment?

Would the defeat of Barack Obama be taken as an affront to black America? Could we be in for a time of deepening racial division rather than healing? Could we be in for a long, hot autumn like the long, hot summers some of us recall from 40 years ago?

One black preacher here suggested as much to me.

Should that happen, the people who have framed this election as a contest between morality and racial justice on one side, and the clammy hand of America's racist past on the other, will bear the same moral responsibility as did the advocates of mass civil obedience for the racial riots of the 1960s that followed.

Barack has just shot 6 points ahead of McCain. But he has not yet closed the sale. And to prevent his closing of the sale, the GOP must raise doubts in the public mind as to whether he is really a man of Middle America or the closet radical of the Rev. Wright's congregation who said of Pennsylvanians that they are bitter folks, who cling to their Bibles, bigotries and guns because the world has left them behind.

No candidate has ever been nominated by a major party with fewer credentials or a weaker claim to the presidency, or more doubts as to his core beliefs. If Obama wins, the country could be in real trouble. And if he loses, the country could be in real trouble.

What the media celebrate today, they may rue tomorrow.

Changes in Politics
Thomas Sowell
Saturday, August 30, 2008

One of the few political cliches that makes sense is that "In politics, overnight is a lifetime."

Less than a year ago, the big question was whether Rudolph Giuliani could beat Hillary Clinton in this year's presidential election. Less than two months ago, Barack Obama had a huge lead over John McCain in the polls. Less than a week ago, the smart money was saying that Mitt Romney would be McCain's choice for vice president.

We don't need Barack Obama to create "change." Things change in politics, in the economy, and elsewhere in American society, without waiting for a political messiah to lead us into the promised land.

Who would have thought that Obama's big speech at the Democratic convention would disappoint expectations, while McCain's speech electrified his audience when he announced his choice of Governor Sarah Palin for his running mate?

Some people were surprised that his choice was a woman. What is more surprising is that she is an articulate Republican. How many of those have you seen?

Despite the incessantly repeated mantra of "change," Barack Obama's politics is as old as the New Deal and he is behind the curve when it comes to today's economy.

Senator Obama's statement that "our economy is in turmoil" is standard stuff on the left and in the mainstream media, which has been dying to use the word "recession."

Not only has the economic slowdown failed to reach the definition of a recession, the most recent data show the U.S. economy growing at a rate exceeding 3 percent-- a rate that many European economies would die for, despite our being constantly urged to imitate those countries whose end results are not as good as ours.

Barack Obama's "change" is a recycling of the kinds of policies and rhetoric of the New Deal that prolonged the Great Depression of the 1930s far beyond the duration of any depression before or since.

These are the same kinds of liberal policies that led to double-digit inflation, double-digit interest rates and rising unemployment during the Carter administration. These are "back to the future" changes to economic disasters that need repeating.

Make no mistake, the political rhetoric of FDR was great. For those who admire political rhetoric, as so many of Barack Obama's supporters seem to, FDR was tops. For those who go by actual results, FDR's track record was abysmal.

Although the Great Depression of the 1930s began under Herbert Hoover, unemployment during Hoover's last year in office was not as high as it became during each of the first five years under FDR.

During the eight years of FDR's first two terms as president, there were only two years in which unemployment was lower than it had been under Herbert Hoover-- and not by much.

World War II has been credited by some with getting the United States out of the Great Depression. What the war did was put an end to the New Deal, as national survival became the top priority and replaced FDR's anti-business and class warfare rhetoric.

Senator Obama's rhetoric today is the anti-business and class warfare rhetoric that worked so brilliantly in a political sense for FDR in the 1930s. But Obama is following an opposite course from FDR when it comes to recognizing threats to American national security.

Senator Obama has repeatedly tried to deal with national security threats with rhetoric. He tried to dismiss the threat of a nuclear Iran with because Iran is "a small nation"-- even though it is larger than Japan, which launched a devastating attack against the United States at Pearl Harbor.

FDR had the good sense to begin urging greater military preparedness in 1940, more than a year before the United States was attacked. He said, "If you wait until you see the whites of their eyes, you will never know what hit you."

Cutting the military budget and taking foreign policy problems to the United Nations are Obama's version of "change."

That is change that we dare not believe in. It is the audacity of hype.

Barack "The Silencer" Obama's Gangland Assault on Free Speech
Michelle Malkin
Friday, August 29, 2008

Where are all the free speech absolutists when you need them? Over the past month, left-wing partisans and Democratic lawyers have waged a brass-knuckled intimidation campaign against GOP donors, TV and radio stations, and even an investigative journalist because they have all dared to question the radical cult of Barack Obama. A chill wind blows, but where the valiant protectors of political dissent are, nobody knows.

On August 11, I called the American Civil Liberties Union national headquarters in New York for comment about the Chicago gangland tactics of one of these groups -- a nonprofit called "Accountable America" that is spearheaded by a former operative of the Obama-endorsing MoveOn outfit.

"Accountable America" is trolling campaign finance databases and targeting conservative donors with "warning" letters in a thuggish attempt to depress Republican fundraising. (You'll be interested to know that the official registered agent of Accountable America is Laurence Gold, a high-powered attorney for the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) who has testified before the Senate complaining about the use of campaign finance laws to stifle the speech of union workers -- a pet cause of the ACLU.)

The ACLU press office failed to respond to my initial call. On August 13, I followed up through e-mail:

"I called on Monday requesting a statement from the ACLU about Accountable America's intimidation campaign against GOP donors. What is the ACLU's position with regard to such efforts? Waiting for your statement..."

ACLU press officer Pamela Bradshaw e-mailed back:

"Michelle, My apologies that I cannot be of more assistance, but we don't have anyone available. Thanks, Pam."

My reply: "Pam -- Does this mean you don't have anyone available today, this week, or for the foreseeable future?"

On August 20, after a week of silence, I forwarded the message again to the ACLU press office. No response.

So, I won't bother asking the ACLU's opinion of the latest wave of speech-squelching moves by the Obama campaign:

On Monday, Obama demanded that the Justice Department stop TV stations from airing a documented, accurate independent ad spotlighting Obama's longtime working relationship with unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers. Obama summoned his followers to bombard stations, many of them owned by conservative-leaning Sinclair Communications, with 93,000 e-mails to squelch the commercial.

On Tuesday, the Obama campaign sent another letter to the Justice Department demanding investigation and prosecution of American Issues Project, the group that produced the Ayers ad, as well as Dallas billionaire Harold Simmons, who funded it.

And on Wednesday, Obama exhorted his followers to sabotage the WGN radio show of veteran Chicago host and University of Chicago Professor Milt Rosenberg. Why? Because he invited National Review writer Stanley Kurtz to discuss his investigative findings about Obama's ties to Ayers and the underwhelming results of their collaboration on a left-wing educational project sponsored by the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. The "Obama Action Wire" supplied Rosenberg's call-in line and talking points like this:

"Tell WGN that by providing Kurtz with airtime, they are legitimizing baseless attacks from a smear-merchant and lowering the standards of political discourse. ... It is absolutely unacceptable that WGN would give a slimy character assassin like Kurtz time for his divisive, destructive ranting on our public airwaves."

Behind the glowing, peaceful facade lies Barack "The Silencer" Obama and his silent enablers on the left. While mainstream journalists schmoozed with liberal celebrities in Denver, practiced yoga with left-wing bloggers and received massages at the Google convention tent near touchy-feely Barackopolis, Team Obama was on an ugly, aggressive warpath sanctioned by Mr. Civility. While compassionate Obama prepared to stand before thousands of worshipers at Invesco Field, purporting to give voice to the voiceless, his Chicago-schooled campaign machine was working overtime to muzzle conservative critics. "We want it to stop," ordered one pro-Obama caller to WGN.

Welcome to the future: the politics of Hope and Change enforced by the missionaries of Search and Destroy.

'Puff, the Magic Obama!'
Chuck Norris
Tuesday, September 02, 2008

Last Thursday evening at the Democratic National Convention, presidential nominee Barack Obama tried to score a political touchdown on the 50-yard line at Denver's Invesco Field. Instead, he won the all-time governmental convention award for the best over-the-top political spectacle of sight, sound, speech and pyrotechnics -- complete with superstar performances, "Braveheart"-like epic music, and an Olympic-sized fireworks show.

For a week prior to the event, newscasters, commentators and pundits were trying to guess what exactly that Greco-Roman column-structured stage backdrop was and what it was supposed to be representing and stating on behalf of Obama. Despite the fact that Obama's camp suggested that these Athenian columns were merely representative of the history of democracy, the entire visual felt more like a temple than a tenured politician's presidential platform. Even his podium looked more like a lectern or pulpit, rising and falling at will and out of sight beneath the stage. Is this the simple, substance-oriented, budget-cutting Obama we can expect if he's president?

As I listened to Obama's speech, which mentioned "change" roughly 15 times, I thought, "I wonder how many of those 80,000 in attendance (and millions more watching on television) realize what type of change is really coming with Obama?"

I'm not saying that change isn't needed. It is. I want changes in government, but not the type that will increase its role in our lives. I want changes with the goal to better adhere to the Constitution, but not the type that appoints liberal judges and justices who legislate from the bench. I want changes regarding America's relations with the rest of the world, but not the type that further compromises our national security. I want changes regarding America's role in the Middle East, but not the type that creates instability and gives al-Qaida the upper hand again. I want changes to our medical care, but I don't want more big government and billions of dollars in new taxes. I want changes regarding America's deficit, but not the type that increases it. I want changes at America's borders, but not the type that creates more holes for terrorists and other illegal transport. I desperately want changes in the tax code, but not ones that ultimately raise taxes. (Only a "fair tax" eliminates most.) But all those types of changes are exactly what Americans will experience if we elect Barack Obama to be president.

Let there be no doubt about it: We will have change with Obama, but, America, I assure you that it is not the type of change we need or want. No way. No how. NObama. Now, more than ever, is the time to join the NObamaNation revolution.

As with so many of you, I realized months ago that Obama can get away with just about anything because all that too many Americans seem to care about are charisma and the term "change." It doesn't matter if Obama plagiarizes speeches, who his pastor and spiritual mentor was for 20 years, that he has the most liberal voting record in the Senate, that he refused to wear the American flag as a pin, that he didn't place his hand over his heart during the national anthem, that his wife just recently has become proud of her country, or that he is sympathetic to Muslim terrorist groups, etc. Even a decade ago, most people never could have imagined appointing such a person to be county supervisor, let alone the president of the United States.

So it seems those Greek pillars just may represent something after all, because in ancient Greece, people were more enamored by rhetoric and passionate presentations than by principled truths and pragmatic solutions. In modern America, these few millenniums later, nothing seems to have changed. I might not be the smartest man on the political block, but I know fluff when I see it (or is it Puff?). Obama conducted his version of a political David Copperfield magic show. Will Americans really not see beyond his illusory performance? America, we are being duped again by fluff and folly, glitz and glamour, and hype and Hollywood.

It's time for America to wake up before it's too late! Reawakening our country and making necessary societal changes are the very reasons I've fully engaged in the culture wars with my new book (to be released Sept. 7), "Black Belt Patriotism," available for pre-order from Amazon.com. It is my battle plan for winning back America. But it's not just my plan; it's our Founders' plan, as I turn to them for their old solutions to our new problems.

Bottom line: Obama's big-government solutions will cost us big money through increased taxes and increased national debt. In the third chapter of my book, "Stop America's Nightmare of Debt," I cite Thomas Jefferson, who gives some timely advice for such a prospective form of government:

"What we need now more than ever is smaller government and lower taxes. Thomas Jefferson was particularly eloquent on the problem of government debt and taxes: 'To preserve (the) independence (of the people), we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses, and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes, have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account, but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers.' (A prophetic statement?)"


Just when you think he can't stoop any lower, Barack Obama has sunk to a new low - mocking both the Bible and America's Christian heritage in a speech that you probably won't be seeing broadcast by the mainstream media. But we've got the footage and are about to give it airtime across the nation as part of an aggressive television advertising campaign. Our goal: to defeat Barack Obama's campaign for president.

See the TV ad - "Obama Mocks America's Christian Heritage" here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qn-P3yAaAqI

They say the truth hurts. In Barack Obama's case, it is simply devastating.

Not surprisingly the Big Media have kept the American public blind to the truth about Obama, including...

The fact that a corrupt Chicago Machine politician "made a U.S. senator" out of Barack Obama

How Barack Obama won his first election by having his lawyers knock all his opponents off the ballot on technicalities

Obama's support for a grotesque "infanticide" law that was too extreme even for Nancy Pelosi

The Tony Rezko connection: "I've never done any favors for him," says Obama about convicted developer Tony Rezko. Oh, but he has...

Stop the Cover-up of Obama's Terrorist Ties!
In case you haven't heard about all of this, Bill Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn, were terrorists for the notorious Weather Underground during the 1960s, turning fugitive when a bomb -- designed to kill army officers in New Jersey -- accidentally exploded in a New York townhouse. Prior to that, Ayers and his cohorts succeeded in bombing the Pentagon!

Ayers and Dohrn remain unrepentant for their terrorist past. Ayers was pictured in a 2001 article for Chicago magazine, stomping on an American flag, and told the New York Times just before 9/11 that the notion of the United States as a just and fair and decent place "makes me want to puke." Although Obama actually launched his political career at an event at Ayers's and Dohrn's home, Obama has dismissed Ayers as just "a guy who lives in my neighborhood," and "not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis." For his part, Ayers refuses to discuss his relationship with Obama.

Chicago Annenberg Challenge Shutdown?
A cover-up in the making?
By Stanley Kurtz

The problem of Barack Obama’s relationship with Bill Ayers will not go away. Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn were terrorists for the notorious Weather Underground during the turbulent 1960s, turning fugitive when a bomb — designed to kill army officers in New Jersey — accidentally exploded in a New York townhouse. Prior to that, Ayers and his cohorts succeeded in bombing the Pentagon. Ayers and Dohrn remain unrepentant for their terrorist past. Ayers was pictured in a 2001 article for Chicago magazine, stomping on an American flag, and told the New York Times just before 9/11 that the notion of the United States as a just and fair and decent place “makes me want to puke.” Although Obama actually launched his political career at an event at Ayers’s and Dohrn’s home, Obama has dismissed Ayers as just “a guy who lives in my neighborhood,” and “not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.” For his part, Ayers refuses to discuss his relationship with Obama.

Although the press has been notably lax about pursuing the matter, the full story of the Obama-Ayers relationship calls the truth of Obama’s account seriously into question. When Obama made his first run for political office, articles in both the Chicago Defender and the Hyde Park Herald featured among his qualifications his position as chairman of the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a foundation where Ayers was a founder and guiding force. Obama assumed the Annenberg board chairmanship only months before his first run for office, and almost certainly received the job at the behest of Bill Ayers. During Obama’s time as Annenberg board chairman, Ayers’s own education projects received substantial funding. Indeed, during its first year, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge struggled with significant concerns about possible conflicts of interest. With a writ to aid Chicago’s public schools, the Annenberg challenge played a deeply political role in Chicago’s education wars, and as Annenberg board chairman, Obama clearly aligned himself with Ayers’s radical views on education issues. With Obama heading up the board and Ayers heading up the other key operating body of the Annenberg Challenge, the two would necessarily have had a close working relationship for years (therefore “exchanging ideas on a regular basis”). So when Ayers and Dorhn hosted that kickoff for the first Obama campaign, it was not a random happenstance, but merely further evidence of a close and ongoing political partnership. Of course, all of this clearly contradicts Obama’s dismissal of the significance of his relationship with Ayers.

This much we know from the public record, but a large cache of documents housed in the Richard J. Daley Library at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC), is likely to flesh out the story. That document cache contains the internal files of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. The records in question are extensive, consisting of 132 boxes, containing 947 file folders, a total of about 70 linear feet of material. Not only would these files illuminate the working relationship between Obama and Bill Ayers, they would also provide significant insight into a web of ties linking Obama to various radical organizations, including Obama-approved foundation gifts to political allies. Obama’s leadership style and abilities are also sure to be illuminated by the documents in question.

Obama — the New Jimmy Carter
Wednesday, August 20, 2008 8:45 AM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann

Last week raised important questions about whether Barack Obama is strong enough to be president. On the domestic political front, he showed incredible weakness in dealing with the Clintons, while on foreign and defense questions, he betrayed a lack of strength and resolve in standing up to Russia’s invasion of Georgia.

This two-dimensional portrait of weakness underscores fears that Obama might, indeed, be a latter-day Jimmy Carter.

Consider first the domestic and political. Bill and Hillary Clinton have no leverage over Obama. Hillary can’t win the nomination. She doesn’t control any committees. If she or her supporters tried to disrupt the convention or demonstrate outside, she would pay a huge price among the party faithful.

If Obama lost — after Hillary made a fuss at the convention — they would blame her for all eternity (just like Democrats blame Ted Kennedy for Carter’s defeat). But, without having any leverage or a decent hand to play, the Clintons bluffed Obama into amazing concessions.

Hillary will get to play a film extolling her virtues produced by Harry Bloodworth Thomason. Bill will speak on Wednesday night. Hillary’s name will be placed into nomination. She will get to have nominating and seconding speeches on her behalf. And, on Thursday night, the last night of the convention, the roll call will show how narrowly Obama prevailed.

So Obama gave away Tuesday night, Wednesday night and part of Thursday night to the Clintons. It will really be their convention. A stronger candidate would’ve called their bluff and confined the Clintons to one night on which both Hillary and Bill spoke (he would have outshone her). He would have blocked a roll call by allowing a voice vote to nominate by acclimation. He would have stood up to the Clintons and recaptured his own convention.

If Obama can’t stand up to the Clintons, after they have been defeated, how can he measure up to a resurgent Putin who has just achieved a military victory? When the Georgia invasion first began, Obama appealed for “restraint” on both sides.

He treated the aggressive lion and the victimized lamb even-handedly. His performance was reminiscent of the worst of appeasement at Munich, where another dictator got away with seizing another breakaway province of another small neighboring country, leading to World War II.

After two days, Obama corrected himself, spoke of Russian aggression and condemned it. But his initial willingness to see things from the other point of view and to buy the line that Georgia provoked the invasion by occupying a part of its own country betrayed a world view characterized by undue deference to aggressors.

We know so little about Obama. His experience is so thin that it’s hard to tell what kind of a president he’d be. While he nominally has been in the Senate for four years, he really only served the first two and consumed the rest of his tenure running for president and disregarding his Senate duties.

So we have no choice but to scrutinize his current transactions and statements for some clue as to who he is and what he’d do. In that context, his reaction to the first real-time foreign-policy crisis he faced as a nominee leaves his strength in doubt. So does his palsied response to the Clintons’ attempt to make Denver a Clinton convention.

Is Obama an over-intellectualizing Hamlet who is incapable of decisive, strong action? With Iran on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons and Russia resurgent, there isn’t much room for on-the-job learning.

Biden’s Ties to Pro-Iran Groups Questioned
Tuesday, August 26, 2008 4:14 PM
By: Kenneth R. Timmerman

Sen. Barack Obama and his newly-picked running mate, Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, may have sparred during the primaries. But on one issue they are firmly united: the need to forge closer ties to the government of Iran.

Kaveh Mohseni, a spokesman for the Student Movement Coordination Committee for Democracy in Iran, calls Biden “a great friend of the mullahs.”

He notes that Biden’s election campaigns “have been financed by Islamic charities of the Iranian regime based in California and by the Silicon Iran network,” a loosely-knit group of wealthy Iranian-American businessmen and women seeking to end the U.S. trade embargo on Iran.

“In exchange, the senator does his best to aid the mullahs,” Mohseni argues.

Biden’s ties to pro-Tehran lobbying groups are no secret. But so far, the elite media has avoided even mentioning the subject.

Just recently, Biden was one of 16 U.S. senators who voted against a bill that would add Iran’s Revolutionary Guards corps to the State Department’s list of international terrorist organizations, because of its involvement in murdering U.S. troops in Iraq.

Rather than sanction those in power in Tehran, Biden and Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel have argued that the United States should offer Tehran a greater role in Iraq’s domestic affairs.

At a March 2002 conference in Washington, D.C., sponsored by the American-Iranian Council (AIC), Biden made the case for closer U.S. ties to the government of Iran. “I believe than an improved relationship with Iran is in the naked self-interest of the United States of America," Biden said.

At that same meeting, top Bush administration official Zalmay Khalilzad – today, the U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations –poured cold water on Biden’s hopes.

"We had hoped that after the 11 September attacks, the Iranian regime would end its support for terrorists", Khaliazad said. "But Iran did not stop its support for terror. Indeed, the hard-line elements of the Iranian regime facilitated the movement of Al-Qa’eda terrorists escaping from Afghanistan” and sheltered them in Iran.

Biden offered to sponsor a meeting of Iranian and American parliamentarians in Washington - or any place else, if the Iranians had problems coming to the United States. No one in Iran ever took up his offer.

Several Congressional Democrats attempted to travel to Tehran last December to meet with Iranian parliamentarians, but were denied visas by the Iranian regime, one of the Members of Congress involved in the initiative told Newsmax.

While Biden has condemned the human rights abuses of the Iranian regime, his decision to address the American-Iranian Council and other pro-Tehran groups has angered many Iranian-Americans.

“Biden has been too cozy with the supporters of the Iranian regime, which is anti-American, anti-Iranian, and has a horrendous human rights record,” said Sardar Haddad, an Iranian pro-democracy activist based in Texas.

The American-Iranian Council was founded by Hoosang Amirahmadi, a Rutgers University professor of urban studies who tried to run for president of the Islamic Republic in 2005.

Funded in part by oil giant CONOCO, which hoped to secure lucrative oil contracts, AIC has lobbied consistently to get U.S. trade sanctions on Iran eliminated.

In a recent interview with the popular Persian-language netzine, Tabnak, run by the former head of the Revolutionary Guards, Amirahmadi complained that he wasn’t getting enough credit for lobbying Washington.

"This is because the Iranians, instead of empowering the lobby supporting them, undermine it,” he said.

Biden’s ties to the pro-Iranian regime lobby are not a haphazard affair, but a matter of conviction.

Biden told Boston Globe columnist H.D.S. Greenway in 2005 that the United States should address Iran’s “emotional needs” and conclude a “nonaggression pact” with the Tehran regime.

“Senator Joseph Biden said that even if Iran was a full democracy like India, it would want nuclear capability, like India. What the world needed to address was Iran's emotional needs, he said, with a nonaggression pact,” Greenway wrote.

Biden hasn’t shied from asking wealthy Iranian-Americans with known sympathies for the Tehran regime for campaign cash.

When Iranian-American pro-democracy activists learned that Biden planned to attend a fundraiser organized on his behalf by an Iranian Muslim charity in California, they phoned his U.S. Senate office to warn him about the group’s pro-Tehran sympathies.

But the Delaware Democrat swept aside their concerns and attended the Feb. 19, 2002, event at the California home of Dr. Sadegh Namazi-Khah, which brought in an estimated $30,000 for his U.S. Senate re-election campaign.

Several people who attended the fundraiser said that Biden delivered a sweeping condemning of President Bush’s recent State of the Union speech, which identified the Iranian regime as part of an “axis of Evil.”

“He really impressed us by his grasp of world affairs," Namazi-khah told me at the time. "He encouraged us to make our views known and to get more involved in American politics."

Biden also impressed many of those present with his friendly attitude toward Iran.

The senator said that "Iran always wanted to be an ally of the United States and to have good relations with the U.S.," said Housang Dadgostar, a prominent lawyer who wrote Biden’s campaign a $1,000 check.

"As Iranian-Americans, we don't want anything to happen to the Iranian government or to the Iranian people as a result of this war on terrorism," said Mohsen Movaghar, a Los Angeles businessman who also attended the event and contributed $1,000 to Biden.

Both men belonged to the 70-member board of directors of Namazi-khah's Iranian Muslim Association of North America (IMAN), which hosted the event.

Namazi-Khah and other IMAN board members told me that the idea for the fundraiser came from Biden, who apparently learned about the group after attending an earlier event sponsored by the AIC.

Both Namazi-Khah and Movaghar also belong to the Board of the American-Iranian Council, the Washington, DC-based lobbying group pressing for an end to U.S. sanctions on Iran.

So does Japeh Youssefi, who traveled from Scotsdale, Ariz., with his wife to attend the 2002 fundraiser in California.

Between the two of them, the Youssefi’s gave $4,000 to Biden’s U.S. Senate campaign, the legal limit at the time.

“Mr. Youssefi has earned the reputation of being a vocal supporter of Iran-US rapprochement and détente,” a biographer on the AIC Web site reads.

“In March of 2000 he created FAIRPAC — the Foundation for American Iranian Rapprochement, a political advocacy council — as a means of informing and educating interested persons everywhere of the benefits of improved U.S.-IRAN relations,” according to the bio.

Another key Biden contributor is Hassan Nemazee, a New York money-manager who chaired Hillary Clinton’s finance committee, personally raising over $500,000 for her campaign.

Nemazee also has served on the board of the American-Iranian Council, and more recently set up the Iranian-American Political Action Committee (IAPAC) along with a group of Silicon Valley billionaires, many of whom have close ties to the Iranian regime.

Because of the controversy Nemazee and IAPAC members have generated within the Iranian-American community, the PAC’s Web site includes a bald disclaimer of any ties to Tehran.

“IAPAC has no relationship with the Islamic Republic of Iran . . . and is not focused on U.S. policy towards Iran, establishing ties with or legitimizing the government of Iran,” it says.

Obama’s choice of Joe Biden as his running mate “highlights the need to really investigate the web of Iranian influence in the United States,” Iranian-American political analyst Hassan Daioleslam told Newsmax.

“What you have here is a group of people who have been working together through different groups and organizations for the past ten years” to promote the interests of the Iranian regime.

“It’s deeply troubling to have a vice-presidential candidate raise funds from people whose ties to the Iranian regime raise such serious questions,” Daioleslam said.

Whitey Need Not Apply
by Patrick J. Buchanan
Posted 08/01/2008 ET

"Will race be an issue in this campaign?"

Hearing the cable talk-show host solemnly pose the question, I could not suppress a belly laugh.

For the anchor was fearful that some white folks might reject Obama because he is African-American -- even as a Rasmussen poll was reporting that Barack is beating McCain among black voters 94 to 1.

What, other than race, explains how Barack rolled up 90-10 margins among black voters while running against Hillary Clinton, wife of the man novelist Toni Morrison dubbed "our first black president"?

Indeed, so one-sided was the primary coverage in favor of Barack as the first African-American with a real chance to be president, even "Saturday Night Live" took to mocking the mainstream media.

As for black radio, on "The Tom Joyner Morning Show," "Michael Baisden Show" and "The Steve Harvey Morning Show," which together may reach 20 million folks, there is "little pretense of balance," writes Jim Rutenberg of The New York Times. "More often than not the Obama campaign is discussed as the home team."

Black Entertainment Television plans to carry Barack's speech to the Democratic convention live, but has no plans to carry McCain's. Barack's speech "is an historic occasion," says BET Chairman Debra L. Lee, "so that demands some special treatment from us."

As the mainstream media have moved left and talk radio right, and cable is breaking down along political and ideological lines, there is something else afoot now -- the racial Balkanization of the newsroom.

Consider. On Sunday, 6,800 folks showed in Chicago for the 2008 quadrennial convention of UNITY: Journalists of Color. McCain declined an invitation. Bush had been booed at UNITY 2004, while John Kerry got a standing ovation. Featured speaker: Barack. Major concern of the journalists running the show: that their colleagues would lift the roof off the McCormick Place convention center when Barack arrived.

Said Luis Villareal, a producer of NBC's "Dateline," "I don't think it's such a bad thing if for 15 minutes you take off your reporter hat and respond to (Obama) as a human being at an event where you're surrounded by people of color and you're here for a united cause."

And exactly what "cause" might the 10,000 members of UNITY be united behind? The hiring and advancement of journalists of color in all major news organizations in America.

For, as its emblem depicts, UNITY comprises four alliances: the Asian American Journalists Association, the National Association of Hispanic Journalists, the Native American Journalists Association and the National Association of Black Journalists.

"A New Journalism for a Changing World" is UNITY's motto. And the title of its July 22 press release reveals what the "new journalism" is all about. "Aim of New UNITY Initiative Is More Diversity in Top Media Management."

"With more than 50 percent of the population projected to be people of color in less than a generation," says UNITY President Karen Lincoln Michel, "the nation's news organizations continue to generate dismal diversity numbers year after year. ... 'Ten by 2010' is a significant step in the right direction."

What is Ten by 2010?

UNITY is demanding that 10 major U.S. news organizations, by mid-2010, elevate to a senior management position in the newsroom at least one journalist of color and provide "customized training to help prepare them."

The journalist may be Asian, African-American, Native American or Hispanic, which rules out journalists of Irish, English, Polish, Italian, German or Jewish ancestry, since they are white.

Is this what we have come to 50 years after the triumph of the civil rights movement? Flat-out demands, by American journalists, for the hiring and promotion of colleagues based on race and color?

Is there any evidence major news organizations in this country have engaged in systematic discrimination to keep out men or women of color this last half century? The reverse seems true. They have bent over backward to advance minority journalists.

And if journalists have been hired and promoted based on ability and merit, why in the 21st century should these criteria be thrown out as the standards for advancement -- in favor of race and color?

Isn't this what they did in the days of Jim Crow -- hire and promote based on race? What UNITY is calling for is a return to the old rules but with new beneficiaries -- blacks, Hispanics, Asians and Native Americans -- and new victims, all of whom will be white.

On Sunday, McCain came out in favor of an Arizona civil rights initiative that would outlaw any state discrimination either for or against folks, based on race, gender or national origin. Barack said he was "disappointed" with McCain and told UNITY he favors affirmative action "when properly structured."

The Arizona referendum banning preferential treatment based on race is also on the ballot in the swing state of Colorado. It won in California in 1996, in Washington in 2000 and in Michigan in the great Democratic sweep of 2006. It has never lost, and may just win McCain Colorado, and with it the nation.

Letter to the voters

My name is Joe Porter. I live in Champaign, Illinois. I'm 46 years old, a born-again Christian, a husband, a father, a small business owner, a veteran, and a homeowner. I don't consider myself to be either conservative or liberal, and I vote for the person, not Republican or Democrat. I don't believe there are 'two Americas' - but that every person in this country can be whomever and whatever they want to be if they'll just work to get there - and nowhere else on earth can they find such opportunities. I believe our government should help those who are legitimately downtrodden, and should always put the interests of America first.

The purpose of this message is that I'm concerned about the future of this great nation. I'm worried that the silent majority of honest, hard-working, tax-paying people in this country have been passive for too long. Most folks I know choose not to involve themselves in politics. They go about their daily lives, paying their bills, raising their kids, and doing what they can to maintain the good life. They vote and consider doing so to be a sacred trust. They shake their heads at the political pundits and so-called 'news', thinking that what they hear is always spun by whoever is reporting it. They can't understand how elected officials can regularly violate the public trust with pork barrel spending. They don't want government handouts. They want the government to protect them, not raise their taxes for more government programs.

We are in the unique position in this country of electing our leaders.

It's a privilege to do so. I've never found a candidate in any election with whom I agreed on everything. I'll wager that most of us don't even agree with our families or spouses 100% of the time. So when I step into that voting booth, I always try to look at the big picture and cast my vote for the man or woman who is best qualified for the job. I've hired a lot of people in my lifetime, and essentially that's what an election is - a hiring process. Who has the credentials? Whom do I want working for me? Whom can I trust to do the job right? I'm concerned that a growing number of voters in this country simply don't get it. They are caught up in a fervor they can't explain, and calling it 'change'.

"Change what?” I ask.

Well, we're going to change America, they say.

"In what way?” I query.

"We want someone new and fresh in the White House", they exclaim.

"So, someone who's not a politician?", I press.

"Uh, well, no, we just want a lot of stuff changed, so we're voting for Obama", they state.

So the current system, the system of freedom and democracy that has enabled a man to grow up in this great country, get a fine education, raise incredible amounts of money and dominate the news and win his party's nomination for the White House - that system's all wrong? No, no, that part of the system's okay - we just need a lot of change. And so it goes. 'Change we can believe in.' Quite frankly, I don't believe that vague proclamations of change hold any promise for me. In recent months, I've been asking virtually everyone I encounter how they're voting. I live in Illinois, so most folks tell me they're voting for Barack Obama. But no one can really tell me why - only that he's going to change a lot of stuff. Change, change, change. I have yet to find one single person who can tell me distinctly and convincingly why this man is qualified to be President and Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful nation on earth other than the fact that he claims he's going to  implement a lot of change.

We've all seen the emails about Obama's genealogy, his upbringing, his Muslim background, and his church affiliations. Let's ignore this for a moment. Put it all aside. Then ask yourself, what qualifies this man to be my president? That he's a brilliant orator and talks about change?


Friends, I'll be forthright with you - I believe the American voters who are supporting Barack Obama don't have a clue what they're doing, as evidenced by the fact that not one of them - NOT ONE of them I've spoken to can spell out his qualifications. Not even the most liberal media can explain why he should be elected. 

Political experience? Negligible.
Foreign relations? Non-existent.
Achievements? Name one.

Someone who wants to unite the country? If you haven't read his wife's thesis from Princeton, look it up on the web. This is who's lining up to be our next First Lady? The only thing I can glean from Obama's constant harping about change is that we're in for a lot of new taxes.

For me, the choice is clear. I've looked carefully at the two leading applicants for the job, and I've made my choice.

Here's a question - where were you five and a half years ago, around Christmas, 2002? You've had five or six birthdays in that time. My son has grown from a sixth grade child to a high school graduate. Five and a half years is a good chunk of time -- about 2,000 days, 2,000 nights of sleep, 6,000 meals, give or take.

John McCain spent that amount of time, from 1967 to 1973, in a North Vietnamese prisoner-of-war camp.

When offered early release, he refused it. He considered this offer to be a public relations stunt by his captors, and insisted that those held longer than he should be released first. Did you get that part? He was offered his freedom, and he turned it down. A regimen of beatings and torture began.

Do you possess such strength of character? Locked in a filthy cell in a foreign country, would you turn down your own freedom in favor of your fellow man? I submit that's a quality of character that is rarely found, and for me, this singular act defines John McCain.

Unlike several presidential candidates in recent years whose military service is questionable or non-existent, you will not find anyone to denigrate the integrity and moral courage of this man. A graduate of Annapolis, during his Naval service he received the Silver Star, Bronze Star, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross. His own son is now serving in the Marine Corps in Iraq. Barack Obama is fond of saying 'We honor John McCain's service...BUT...', which to me is condescending and offensive - because what I hear is, 'Let's forget this man's sacrifice for his country and his proven leadership abilities, and talk some more about change.'

I don't agree with John McCain on everything - but I am utterly convinced that he is qualified to be our next President, and I trust him to do what's right. I know in my heart that he has the best interests of our country in mind. He doesn't simply want to be President - he wants to lead America, and there's a huge difference.

Factually, there is simply no comparison between the two candidates. A man of questionable background and motives who prattles on about change can't hold a candle to a man who has devoted his life in public service to this nation, retiring from the Navy in 1981 and elected to the Senate in 1982.

Perhaps Obama's supporters are taking a stance between old and new. Maybe they don't care about McCain's service or his strength of character, or his unblemished qualifications to be President. Maybe 'likeability' is a higher priority for them than trust'. Being a prisoner of war is not what qualifies John McCain to be President of the United States of America - but his demonstrated leadership certainly DOES.

Dear friends, it is time for us to stand. It is time for thinking Americans to say, 'Enough.' It is time for people of all parties to stop following the party line. It is time for anyone who wants to keep America first, who wants the right man leading their nation, to start a dialogue with all their friends and neighbors and ask who they're voting for, and why.

There's a lot of evil in this world. That should be readily apparent to all of us by now. And when faced with that evil as we are now, I want a man who knows the cost of war on his troops and on his citizens. I want a man who puts my family's interests before any foreign country.

I want a President who's qualified to lead. I want my country back, and I'm voting for John McCain.

At this point, I want to add that I don’t want a First Lady that has to be shown how to really love America. I want a First Lady who thinks more about people beyond herself and takes on tasks like Cindy McCain does. Have you read about her trip to Rwanda and Zaire? Look it up. She thinks far beyond herself and “her” people.

Analyzing Michelle Obama's Princeton thesis
Posted by Kelly Heyboer/ The Star-Ledger February 29, 2008

Actors Brooke Shields and Dean Cain used their senior papers to write about the film industry. Actor David Duchovny wrote about Samuel Beckett. Future politician Bill Bradley wrote about Harry Truman. Ralph Nader explored Lebanese agriculture.

But few senior theses have attracted as much attention as Michelle Obama's 1985 paper, "Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community."

Bloggers have been devouring the 96-page paper since its release. Their interest was heightened by Princeton's initial refusal to make the thesis publicly available.

Politico.com posted the full thesis.

Plenty of bloggers are posting their takes on the academic musings of a potential future first lady:

From Will Offensicht, blogging at Scragged:
Mrs. Obama correctly noticed that she was judged by the color of her skin rather than by the content of her character. She was black first and a student second. This is because the Princeton admissions office insisted on admitting students based on the color of their skin rather than on the content of their qualifications. As long as our society insists on affirmative action programs which give blacks jobs and college positions beyond their qualifications, as long as society insists on treating people based on the color of their skins, it should be no surprise that people treat people based on the color of their skins.
We've pointed out that Mr. Obama's success in attracting white voters has shown that since institutional racism is over, affirmative action is no longer needed. Mr. Obama has convinced enough white voters that he'd be President of all Americans rather than just a black president that he's close to winning the Democratic nomination. It's time to end the harm done to students like the future Mrs. Obama and end racial preferences. The way to end racism is to end racism, not to practice it at all levels of government, business, and society at large.

From Mark Gardner, blogging at WhackyNation:
No wonder Princeton University was trying to hide Michelle Obama's senior thesis. The Politico has gotten ahold of it, and, wow! What an angry woman who has a serious problem with blacks and whites living together in an integrated society.

Barack Obama and the Democrats should face reality. This senior paper dooms any hope of the Obama couple being elected to the White House.

Posted by publicircus on 03/01/08 at 1:48AM
Well it’s kind of funny that this subject came up. I went to college and was one of two of the only white girls in a black apartment on campus. It was a damaging experience for me- one that changed the course of my life for reasons I will not go into. Well after what, 30 years, I looked on the internet and saw one of my roommates - a chairman of the sociology dept of a black college. I read her website and one area stated what her main objectives were -- to get African Americans into the sciences.

After reading that, I said to myself "Gee if after all these years your goal is to get African Americans into the sciences, then you haven't gotten anywhere at all. The real goal should have said, "To get more students interested in the sciences". Is this Michele Obama? I hope not.

Princeton Releases Michelle Obama's Senior Thesis
(UWIRE.com) This story was written by Esther Breger, The Daily Princetonian
Feb 26, 2008

Michelle Obama's thesis was released to the public by Princeton University Tuesday after several days of media scrutiny over its availability and content.

The campaign of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), her husband, received criticism from conservative media and bloggers when the University restricted access to her senior thesis until after the presidential election in November.

"A thesis can be restricted or unrestricted for a variety of reasons, including at the request of alumni," University spokeswoman Cass Cliatt '96 said in an e-mail. "It falls within the purview of alumni to discuss their academic work," she said.

Analysis of the thesis' content, in addition to its restricted availability, has featured prominently in blogs over the last few days. Written under Obama's maiden name of Michelle LaVaughn Robinson and titled "Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community," the thesis has come under scrutiny as the presidential campaign has advanced for its analysis of race relations.

What's in the thesis?

Obama, who concentrated in sociology and received a certificate in African-American studies, examined how the attitudes of black alumni have changed over the course of their time at the University. "Will they become more or less motivated to benefit the Black community?" Obama wrote in her thesis.

After surveying 89 black graduates, Obama concluded that attending the University as an undergraduate decreased the extent to which black alumni identified with the black community as a whole.

Obama drew on her personal experiences as an example.

"As I enter my final year at Princeton, I find myself striving for many of the same goals as my White classmates -- acceptance to a prestigious graduate school or a high-paying position in a successful corporation," she wrote, citing the University's conservative values as a likely cause.

"Predominately White universities like Princeton are socially and academically designed to cater to the needs of the White students comprising the bulk of their enrollments," she said, noting the small size of the African-American studies department and that there were only five black tenured professors at the University across all departments.

Obama studied the attitudes of black Princeton alumni to determine what effect their time at Princeton had on their identification with the black community. "My experiences at Princeton have made me far more aware of my 'Blackness' than ever before," she wrote in her introduction. "I have found that at Princeton no matter how liberal and open-minded some of my White professors and classmates try to be toward me, I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as if I really don't belong."

"Her thesis seems especially pertinent given the questions that have been raised off and on about the supposed 'tight-rope' of racial identity politics that some claim Senator Obama has to carefully navigate," College Democrats president Rob Weiss '09 said in an e-mail.

"In using Michelle Obama on the campaign trail, the Obama camp has made her a figure, and therefore a factor, in the campaign," Stadler said. "Her opinions

Politics as Usual
Cal Thomas
Tuesday, August 05, 2008

At the beginning of this long political season - if there ever was a beginning, since campaigns are now nonstop with only the players changing - it appeared this one might, just might, be different.

Barack Obama, the biracial candidate would be the trans-racial healer. He promised to seek common ground with Republicans for the betterment of the country.

John McCain, too, was the reach-out candidate with a record of working with "the other side," to the consternation of many conservatives, but to the delight of independents who, say the experts, are essential to a McCain victory.

For the doubtful, which are those of us who have observed politics for a few decades, it all seemed too good to be true. And now politics as usual has proved too true to be good. The pettiness, the tearing down and the irrelevance of the political dialogue resembles so many other distasteful presidential campaigns. Obama was the first to use the "race card," claims McCain. “No, he wasn't”, says Obama. “McCain was”. One wishes some adult would step in and say, "Children, go to your rooms."

This is what passes for modern political discourse. Conservative says to liberal: "You're ruining America." Liberal responds, "No, you're ruining America." Conservative: "You're a communist." Liberal: You're a fascist." Conservative: "You're a secular humanist." Liberal: "You're a Bible-thumping bigot." Host of cable program: "We'll be back with more civil discussion after these messages."

Do these guys really believe what they're saying about each other? If so, perhaps we need two different candidates.

When McCain first proposed a series of town hall meetings with no journalists, Obama said it was a good idea. But then Obama, or his handlers, apparently thought better of it. His camp has agreed only to the three scheduled fall debates, presided over by journalists, many of whom see themselves as co-equal with the candidates.

Apparently, the Obama camp thinks it can preserve its small lead in most polls by not giving McCain too many platforms. How does this conform to Obama's image of conciliation and working together?

That image is beginning to unravel. The Weekly Standard reports on Obama's "lost years" as a state legislator, noting he was the antithesis of the cross-aisle conciliator. "Obama is bipartisan so long as that means asking Republicans to take incremental steps toward his own broader goals," writes Stanley Kurtz. "When it comes to compromising with the other side, however, Obama says ‘take a hike.'"

"The real Obama: Fundamentally, he is a big-government redistributionist," says Kurtz, who offers examples of Obama's partisan Illinois legislative record. Included are his writings for and coverage by two Chicago publications, the Hyde Park Herald, Chicago's oldest community newspaper, and the Chicago Defender, once the nation's most influential African-American daily.

Combing through the archives of those newspapers, Kurtz concludes, "What they portray is a Barack Obama sharply at variance with the image of the post-racial, post-ideological, bipartisan, culture-war-shunning politician familiar from current media coverage and purveyed by the Obama campaign. As details of Obama's early political career emerge into the light, his associations with such radical figures as Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Father Michael Pfleger, Reverend James Meeks, Bill Ayers, and Bernardine Dohrn look less like peculiar instances of personal misjudgment and more like intentional political partnerships. At his core, in other words, the politician chronicled here is profoundly race-conscious, exceedingly liberal, free-spending even in the face of looming state budget deficits, and partisan. Elected president, this man would presumably shift the country sharply to the left on all the key issues of the day, culture-war issues included. It's no wonder Obama has passed over his Springfield years in relative silence."

Now there is substance worthy of debate. How does Obama's liberalism apply to energy, fighting terrorism, the economy, taxes, spending, health care and the proper role of government? And given Obama's past history of refusing to compromise on anything important, why should voters accept his "makeover"?

As for McCain, who does have a record of compromising, on what issues would he hold fast and never compromise?

These are important questions that ought to be at the center of the presidential contest. Unfortunately, they have been replaced with the silly, irrelevant and juvenile. This is not what the public was promised.

Obama's Naive Berlin Speech
Dennis Prager
Tuesday, July 29, 2008

To better understand Sen. Barack Obama, his speech before 200,000 Germans in Berlin is one good place to start. As we shall see, however, it does not leave one secure as to the senator's understanding of history, of America's role in the world, and what to do about evil, among other important issues.

Obama: "At the height of the Cold War, my father decided, like so many others in the forgotten corners of the world, that his yearning -- his dream -- required the freedom and opportunity promised by the West."

Promised by the West? Or promised by America? It wasn't "the West" that Obama's father went to; it was America. During the Cold War, it wasn't "the West" that led the fight to preserve Western freedom; it was America. Obama concedes this point in his next sentence: "And so he wrote letter after letter to universities all across America until somebody, somewhere answered his prayer for a better life."

Obama's speech was a paean to the West and especially to Germany in fighting for freedom during the Cold War. Throughout his speech he equated the German contribution to defeating Communism with that of America

Obama: "And you know that the only reason we stand here tonight is because men and women from both of our nations came together to work, and struggle, and sacrifice for that better life."

It is understandable and even expected that an American speaking in Germany will praise Germans. But even so, it is quite an exaggeration to state that the "only reason" he and they are standing in a free Berlin is because men and women from both countries sacrificed for that better life. Americans sacrificed far more than Germans. The sad truth is that, with some heroic exceptions, Germans on the right supported Hitler, and during the Cold War, Germans on the left fought the Unites States more than they fought the Soviet Union. When Ronald Reagan came to Berlin, tens of thousands of Germans -- many of them, one would surmise, of a similar mindset to those who came to hear Barack Obama -- protested his visit.

Obama: "The size of our forces was no match for the much larger Soviet Army. And yet retreat would have allowed Communism to march across Europe."

Isn't this exactly where we are regarding the retreat from Iraq that Obama and the Democrats have advocated? Wouldn't retreat from Iraq allow militant Islam to march across the Middle East and beyond?

How is one to explain this? I have long believed that many liberals recognize evils only after the evil has been vanquished. Today, Democrats like Obama in his speech, regularly revile Communism. But from the late 1960s until the end of the Cold War they rarely judged Communism. They judged anti-Communists. Liberal Democrats routinely call Communism evil today, but when it was actually a threat, they reviled those who called Communism evil. Again, recall Ronald Reagan and the virtually universal liberal condemnation of his calling the Soviet Union an "evil empire."

So, too, now, regarding today's greatest evil, to cite but one example, not one Democrat in any of their party's presidential primary debates used the term "Islamic terrorism."

Obama: "Where the last war had ended, another World War could have easily begun. All that stood in the way was Berlin."

In his attempt to exaggerate the role of Berlin before his large Berlin audience, Obama made a claim that simply makes no sense. "Berlin stood in the way" of another World War beginning? How? If anything, Berlin was the flash point of East-West tension and therefore could have triggered a war.

Obama: "People of the world -- look at Berlin! Look at Berlin, where Germans and Americans learned to work together and trust each other less than three years after facing each other on the field of battle."

Germans and Americans "learned to work together and trust each other" only thanks to the fact that America and its allies vanquished Germany, overthrew its Nazi leadership, imposed democracy and freedom on Germans, and kept plenty of soldiers in Germany. Why does Obama not apply this lesson to Iraq? If Americans and Iraqis learn to work together and trust each other, it will also be thanks to America and its allies vanquishing the Islamic terrorists, overthrowing the Nazi-like regime of Saddam Hussein, imposing democracy and freedom on Iraqis, and keeping soldiers in Iraq for as long as needed.

Obama: "Look at Berlin … where a victory over tyranny gave rise to NATO, the greatest alliance ever formed to defend our common security."

Obama did not want to offend his hosts by inserting an element of reality here: Many of America's NATO partners have been largely worthless in confronting evils from Communism to al-Qaida to the Taliban. A few weeks ago, leading German newsweekly Der Spiegel reported that German forces in Afghanistan are under strict orders not to shoot any Taliban forces unless shot at first. As a result, they refused to shoot a major Taliban murderer whom they had in their sights because his forces had not shot at the Germans and therefore allowed him to escape.

Obama: "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."

The wall came down because America stood strong, not because the world stood as one. What he said here is John Lennon-like fantasy, the opposite of reality, and as such, coming from the man who may well be the next president of the United States, a bit frightening.

Obama: "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."

Of all the lessons taught by the 20th century, that we share a common destiny is not among the top 10. It is not even among the top 100. It is actually untrue and meaningless. Just to cite one obvious example, did those who lived under Communism and those who lived under democratic capitalism "share a common destiny"? What is he talking about?

If the 20th century did teach something, it taught that evil must always be fought.

The speech reveals a man who has good will and noble desires, but who may be dangerously naive regarding the lessons of history and what to do about evil.

Barack Obama's Naive Berlin Speech -- Part Two
Dennis Prager
Tuesday, August 05, 2008

Sen. Barack Obama's recent speech in Berlin may have been a hit with American journalists. That, however, is due to most journalists' politics, not to the profundity of Obama's remarks. They were neither profound nor stirring. Indeed, a careful study of the speech should lead an impartial observer to be concerned about Obama's grasp of the world. I started my analysis last week; I conclude this week.

Let me begin with that which was praiseworthy.

Obama: "This is the moment when we must defeat terror and dry up the well of extremism that supports it. This threat is real and we cannot shrink from our responsibility to combat it. If we could create NATO to face down the Soviet Union, we can join in a new and global partnership to dismantle the networks that have struck in Madrid and Amman; in London and Bali; in Washington and New York."

This was Obama at his finest -- defining the enemy and defining the task.

Obama: "America cannot do this alone. The Afghan people need our troops and your troops; our support and your support to defeat the Taliban and al-Qaida."

This, too, was important. Any American who calls on Europeans to fight is doing something courageous, as indeed Obama learned within a few days, when Europeans roundly criticized him for suggesting they contribute more to the war in Afghanistan. This only proves that with all his "global citizenship" talk, if he is elected, Obama will be no more popular in Europe than any other president who makes demands of Europeans.

But nearly all of the rest of the speech was either meaningless or wrong.

Obama: "The poverty and violence in Somalia breeds the terror of tomorrow."

In the seven years since 9/11, I have not seen a study that relates terrorism to poverty. And, as everyone knows, all of the 9/11 terrorists came from relatively wealthy homes. Obama's assertion is simply a statement of faith. That faith is liberalism -- increasingly a doctrine with more non-empirically based beliefs, i.e., dogmas, than most traditional religion: "Poverty causes crime"; "black incarceration rates are a result of racism"; "war is not the answer"; "capital punishment doesn't deter"; "tax increases on 'the rich' help the economy"; "more money for education" and countless others.

Obama: "In Europe, the view that America is part of what has gone wrong in our world, rather than a force to help make it right, has become all too common."

Obama is right that the view that "America is part of what has gone wrong in our world" is "all too common" in Europe. But one would hope that an American leader, especially one who may be the next president of the United States, would tell a European audience how wrong such a perception is, would tell them that whatever his or their differences with American policies, America has been and continues to be the greatest force for good on earth.

Obama: "The genocide in Darfur shames the conscience of us all."

Obama is certainly right that Darfur "shames the conscience of us all." But he offers not one suggestion concerning what to do about it. Nor one lesson that he draws from it.

Obama: "Europeans today are bearing new burdens and taking more responsibility in critical parts of the world…"

Which Europeans? What new burdens? Where are they taking more responsibility?

What new burdens have Spain, France, Norway or Sweden taken on? It seems to many of us that most European countries work hard to ensure that their welfare states prosper and, beyond that, do little to promote liberty on earth or even ensure their won security and values.

Obama: "That is why the greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another."

What new walls is he referring to? The wall America is erecting to keep people from illegally entering? The barrier Israel has erected that has reduced terror there to almost zero? It would seem that those are actually good walls. Or is he referring to the walls many Muslim immigrants to Europe build in order to insulate themselves from Western influences? One doubts it. But there is no way to know, since Mr. Obama again offers a platitude that means little.

And as regards "the greatest danger of all," that remains, as it always was, acts and doctrines of evil, not walls or carbon dioxide emissions.

Obama: "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."

Those thoughts are lovely. But what matters is who is responsible for erecting these walls. For example, is it Christians or Jews or Muslims who today are erecting walls between "Christian and Muslim and Jew"? Obama seems to imply that all are equally responsible.

Obama: "This is the moment when we must renew the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. … This is the moment to begin the work of seeking the peace of a world without nuclear weapons."

This naivete is frightening. A "world without nuclear weapons" is a foolish and dangerous fantasy. The problem with nuclear weapons -- as with all weapons -- is not that they exist; it is that evil men may obtain and use them. Those of us preoccupied with protecting the innocent want good nations to have the most powerful weapons on earth. We do not share Sen. Obama's goal of America and its enemies having the same weapons.

Why a Black Artist Replaced the National Anthem
Dennis Prager
Tuesday, July 08, 2008

Last week in Denver, almost all the values of the post-1960s left were exhibited in one act.

It happened on the Denver mayor's most important day -- the one in which he was to deliver his annual State of the City Address. The day was to begin with the singing of the National Anthem by the black jazz singer Rene Marie. But Ms. Marie had, by her own admission, long had other plans. Instead of the National Anthem, she sang "Lift Ev'ry Voice and Sing," a song written in 1899 and often referred to today as the Black National Anthem.

What Marie did embodied a plethora of leftist ideals and characteristics: Ethical relativism, multiculturalism, the supremacy of feelings, and the belief that artists are above normal ethical standards and group victimization.

We begin with ethical relativism. The left's opposition to Judeo-Christian values is first and foremost an opposition to objective, or universal, ethics. Ethics and morality are relative. There is no objective or universal standard of right and wrong. We are each the source of our own values.

These lessons were learned well by Marie. The notion that lying to the mayor of Denver (a Democrat, as it happens) when she agreed to his invitation to sing the National Anthem was unethical or immoral is foreign to Ms. Marie.

But how could she morally defend something so obviously immoral?

That is what ethical relativism made possible thanks to a number of values of the left.

One such leftist value is multiculturalism. Since the 1960s, a major goal of the left has been to weaken American national identity and replace it with other cultural, national, racial and ethnic identities (in effect, changing the motto of the United States from "From Many, One" to "From One, Many"). It has pursued this goal through bilingual education, election ballots in multiple languages, numerical guidelines in American history textbooks concerning the percentage of space allotted to given minorities, opposition to declaring English America's national language, and rendering the term "flag waving" a pejorative that implies quasi-fascist sentiments.

One could well imagine a member of any number of other minorities substituting a different song for the National Anthem. The left has successfully taught millions of Americans to honor other national identities while either fearing or disparaging American nationalism. That lesson, too, was clearly learned by Marie.

The idea of a Black National Anthem is a multiculturalist paradigm. A black freedom song, a black hymnal, songs that gave African slaves on American soil some comfort and hope in the midst of their suffering, and, for that matter, "Lift Ev'ry Voice and Sing" -- these all fit perfectly into an American national identity. Indeed, all Americans should know such songs. But a Black National Anthem, when substituted for the National Anthem, means that there are two nations on American soil, a black one and an American one.

The left's second contribution to Marie's value system has been its elevation of feelings above other values. For example, one determines right and wrong on the basis of how one feels (as opposed to, let us say, asking what one's religion, or God, or any moral law that transcends one's own feelings would say on a given matter).

Now, the elevation of one's feelings above other considerations is generally viewed as a form of narcissism. And while narcissism is as old as humanity, until the 1960s it was generally regarded as a character flaw. Since the 1960s, however, it was more often heralded as a virtue. From recreational drug use to recreational sex, acting on one's feelings, actions of self-centered narcissism, has been glorified.

The core of this attitude lies in the left's veneration of feelings. How one feels became all-important. It even determines morality, the rightness or wrongness of an action. Thus, a generation of young people has been raised with the question, "How do you feel about it?" not "Is it right or wrong?"

Thus, Marie justified what she did in terms of feelings: "I want to express how I feel about living in the United States as a black woman, as a black person," she said. Her feelings were what mattered, and they were more important than elementary decency.

A third contribution of the left's values to what Marie did is the elevation of the artist to the status of demigod. If the feelings of mere mortals can determine what is right and wrong, the feelings of an artist are even more important.

There is no hubris like that of many contemporary artists. At some point in the second half of the 20th century the belief arose that artists formed a moral elite.

Given the moral idiocies that have been more the norm than the exception among 20th century artists -- the countless artists who have glorified Communism, Fascism and Nazism -- facts alone render the idea of artist-as-moral-beacon foolish. But even in theory the idea has no merit. There is nothing in art that renders an artist more morally elevated than a sanitation worker.

Sure enough, being an artist was Marie's justification for her dishonesty. Asked on her website, "Wasn't this dishonest?" she responded:

"I can see how it may be perceived that way. But I looked at it a different way: I am an artist. I cannot apologize for that. It goes with the risky territory of being an artist." Marie also told the press, "I don't think it is necessary for artists to ask permission to express themselves artistically."

Artists are above morality. While you and I should not deceive people, artists may.

The fourth contribution of the left to the Marie episode is its constant reinforcement of a sense of victimhood among all Americans who are not male, white, heterosexual and Christian. The moral consequence of this is that the victim, like the artist, like the feelings-determine-morality individual, can do more or less whatever he pleases.

It should be noted that many individuals on the left condemned what Marie did. And it is not for me to judge whether they did so out of conviction or political necessity; one must generally judge actions, not motives. But to the sincere liberal and leftist, I ask: Do you not see how left/liberal values made this episode possible?

Individuals on the left may condemn what happened in Denver City Hall on July 1, 2008. But, in fact, it was a triumph of leftist values.

Final note: If you do not now fear for America's future, please go on the Internet and watch the Denver city officials respectfully watch a woman substitute her own song for that of the National Anthem. Watch how not a single official stopped her, or even demanded that the National Anthem be sung afterward. And listen to the applause. Then you will fear for our country's future.

Liberal Press Circles Wagons around Obama
David Limbaugh
Tuesday, August 05, 2008

The liberal media are unhinged over John McCain's recent ad campaign against Barack Obama, which erased Obama's 9-point lead in the polls and tied the race. How dare McCain challenge their anointed one?

Obama is not the only one convinced he is "the one we've been waiting for." The media are also annoyed they have to endure this irritating uprising from McCain, who is officiously intermeddling with the inexorable flow of history.

Sunday show hosts, editorial pages, and both print and TV news stories this past weekend were pregnant with outrage over McCain's "negative" campaigning -- "negative" being defined as anything, truthful or not, that places Obama in a less favorable light than they require.

Their attitude toward Obama is not unlike their approach to the global warming issue: They accept the environmentalists' edict that man-made, apocalyptic warming is occurring, and no one is allowed to dissent.

So if McCain exposes Obama's policy inconsistencies, questions his character, highlights his presumptuousness, inexperience or superficiality, lampoons the media's crush on him, criticizes his injection of race into the campaign, or responds to Obama's attacks, the media yell "foul."

Newsweek's Jonathan Alter is a good example. It's not just that McCain is using unfair tactics against Obama but also that he's straying from the liberal line that earned Alter's and other liberal journalists' favor in the first place. Coursing through Alter's entire piece "Where Have You Gone, John?" is the unwritten charge that McCain is crossing the line merely by staying in the race. But to confront Obama on issues that matter, that's downright heresy.

What are McCain's capital offenses generating such media outrage? He has depicted Obama as a flip-flopper. He has accused him of arrogance and putting politics above the national interest in refusing to acknowledge the success of the surge and sticking with his demand for immediate withdrawal. McCain had the temerity to make light of Obama's pop celebrity by interposing Obama's image with those of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. McCain accused Obama of playing the race card when suggesting Republicans would attempt to frighten white voters by pointing out that he doesn't look like past U.S. presidents depicted on our greenbacks. McCain parodied Obama's messianic image in likening him to Charlton Heston's Moses parting the Red Sea. And he accused him of canceling his scheduled stop to visit wounded soldiers in Iraq allegedly because media cameras would not be available.

Alter was livid, calling McCain "a surprisingly immature politician -- erratic, impulsive and subject to peer pressure from the last knucklehead who offers him advice." McCain's "lame" tactics, in Alter's opinion, are "out of sync with the real guy." The "real guy" is that Republican who endeared himself to the likes of Alter by attacking fellow Republicans, not superior liberal Democrats. He should be attacking corporate greed, not Barack Obama. This can't be the real John McCain. The real John McCain would put the final nail in the GOP coffin and concede the race.

Surprisingly, The Washington Post's editorial page editor, Fred Hiatt, put his finger precisely on the liberal mindset concerning Republican challenges to their Democratic rivals and their policies. Hiatt says it is "an article of faith among many Democratic believers … that Democratic policies are so obviously superior, and so much more in the interest of a majority of voters, that only some form of chicanery can explain Republican election victories. In this view of the world, Republican operatives … manipulate … issues … to deceive people to vote against their economic self-interest. Or they inflate security threats to frighten them into voting against their self-interest." Bingo and kudos.

With the exception of the charge that Obama canceled his troop visit because cameras wouldn't be present, all of the other supposed McCain offenses listed above are anything but dirty politics. And Obama, by the way, did cancel his visit to meet the wounded soldiers, even if his reason wasn't photo op-related. McCain has a right to expose Obama, his flawed policies, flip-flops, hypocrisy, unfair tactics and character flaws. Indeed, he has a duty to do so.

Campaigns are supposed to inform voters, and all questions should be on the table. It is not negative campaigning to enlighten voters about your opponents' positions on the issues, his qualifications or his character, so long as the information is truthful. Negative campaigning is smearing your opponent through lies and deceit.

But while we're on the subject of honest campaigning, perhaps it is time for Obama to be truthful about who he is and what he stands for instead of scrupulously concealing those things.

But the truth will come out eventually. And if you think the media are squawking now, just wait till the campaign proceeds to the point that Obama's policy and racial radicalism receive the exposure they deserve.

Mr. Obama, Welcome to the NFL!
Patrick J. Buchanan
Tuesday, August 05, 2008

Barack Obama just had the worst week since his beloved pastor, Jeremiah Wright, decided to expatiate on black liberation theology at the National Press Club.

Coming off his royal progress through the Near and Middle East, Berlin, Paris and London, Barack had surged to a nine-point lead in the Gallup tracking poll. By Friday, he was back to a dead heat with a 72-year-old opponent with none of his natural skills, in a year when grocers are pulling Republican brands off the shelves.

For all its gracelessness, the McCain campaign, given openings by Barack, stepped in and put Muhammad Ali on the canvas.

The first opening was the clumsiness with which Barack dealt with a planned visit to wounded U.S. troops in Landshul, Germany.

While the first half of his foreign trip, to Afghanistan and Iraq, was official, the European tour was campaign related. Yet, it was on this leg that a visit to wounded U.S. soldiers had been scheduled. As campaigning in a military hospital is prohibited, the visit was canceled.

But, instead of going ahead and visiting the troops alone, without aides, press or cameras, Barack bailed out and flew on to Paris.

This left the McCain folks an opening to paint Obama as a cold-hearted opportunist avid to visit a military hospital only if he could bring in press and cameras to record his compassion.

Enraged Obama aides savagely accused McCain of running a dishonorable campaign. This reflex reaction, and the ugly brawl that ensued, made some Americans think less of Obama, but many more forget what a success his foreign trip had been.

Then came the Paris-Britney ad. This opens with shots of the wayward blondes, then of Barack, presuming to equate the three as vacuous, insubstantial and aimless. Purpose: Disparage Barack's rock-star popularity and turn it into something laughable.

While the ad seemed both defensive and non-credible, too much of a stretch to be believed -- even Republicans derided it as "childish" -- it apparently acted as something of a matador's cape snapped in front of an already tormented Obama.

Stung, Barack retorted: "What they're going to try is make you scared of me. You know, he's not patriotic enough. He's got a funny name. You know, he doesn't look like all those other presidents on those dollar bills you know” (a racist remark, but somehow it’s okay for a black to be racist, but not for people of other races). “He's risky". 

Barack was accusing the McCain campaign of implying he is risky because he is black in order to manipulate the non-thinking masses to respond in solidarity and emotionally in a knee-jerk fashion without thinking. The risk is due to his lack of experience, and having political and world views that are not in the best interest of America; his overriding interest in being a "citizen of the world" is to the detriment of America, and threatens to destroy the country our forefathers fought so valiantly for, spilling their blood so that we'd have the freedom to be different from what other countries dictated if we so chose. He also lacks a good grasp of history and the consequences of mistakes that have been made -- in particular:  the dangers of Marxism; big government; separatism/multiculturalism rather than cohesive assimilation, integration, all working together and forgetting about our skin colors, religions, etc. to build a stronger and better America rather than constantly drawing attention to skin color, alleging racism and discrimination when there is none, and demanding entitlements or preferences based upon being different.

This was the opening Rick Davis of McCain's campaign needed to deliver a vicious uppercut to Obama's jaw, charging him with "playing the race card ... from the bottom of the deck." Added Davis, this was "divisive, negative, shameful and wrong." McCain, sadly, agreed.

With that, both benches cleared.

Saturday, Bob Herbert of The New York Times charged McCain and the Republican Party with producing ads that are "slimy ... foul, poisonous ... designed to exploit the hostility, anxiety and resentment of the many white Americans who are still freakishly hung up on the idea of black men rising above their station and becoming sexually involved with white women."

Sunday, Gene Robinson of The Washington Post accused McCain of "running a desperate, ugly campaign."

The Britney-Paris ad calling Obama "the biggest celebrity in the world" was an attempt to "turn Obama's popularity into a flaw."

Now, undeniably, McCain's ad was designed to minimize and mock Obama's popularity as a modern form of Beatlemania.

But what is wrong with that?

On the weekend, the McCain folks released another ad. Called "The One," it features Barack's grandiose pronouncements about who he is, what he means to mankind and the marvelous miracles that await our messiah's arrival -- and twins him with Moses (Charlton Heston) parting the Red Sea in "The Ten Commandments."

The effectiveness of the ad is that people laugh with it, and so doing, laugh at the perceived pretentiousness of Barack Obama.

In a week, Barack, an object of media homage on his trip abroad, has become an object of mockery in much of Middle America. Though his media allies may howl racism, most Americans tend more and more to dismiss this. That card has been played so often it's dog-eared.

And Barack's raising the race issue anew seems suicidal. When one is winning the black vote 94 to 1, does it make sense to keep pushing into the face of the 87 percent of Americans who are Asian, Hispanic and Caucasian that the next president will definitely not be one of you (and make them more aware that Blacks are many times more as likely to pick a candidate based upon race than people of other races are)?  It's time that all groups of people got over racism and realize that we're all Americans who need to assimilate to make this country strong again, and forget about devisive multicultrualism. A candidate should be picked based upon qualifications -- not skin color. My ancestors came to America after slavery was over, but all Americans living today did not have slaves and no present-day blacks were slaves, so it's about time we all got the chips off our shoulders and moved on, rather than wasting our lives with bitterness and hatred of other races. What made America so great in the past was that it was "The Great Melting Pot" where everyone came and tried to assimilate, learn America's language, customs and history and forgot about their differences. Today's multiculturalism is divisive and greatly weakens us.

When JFK's polls showed him sweeping 80 percent of Catholics, he did not whistle-stop through the Bible belt, billing himself as our "first Roman Catholic president." He sent Lyndon and Lady Bird on a Dixie special to talk about JFK's war record and rake Richard Nixon.

Thus he become our first Catholic president. If Barack wishes to be our first black president, he will tell his friends to stop bellowing and braying every day about it.

Michelle Obama thesis was on racial divide
By: Jeffrey Ressner
February 23, 2008

Michelle Obama's senior year thesis at Princeton University, obtained from the campaign by Politico, shows a document written by a young woman grappling with a society in which a black Princeton alumnus might only be allowed to remain "on the periphery." Read the full thesis here: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4.

"My experiences at Princeton have made me far more aware of my 'blackness' than ever before," the future Mrs. Obama wrote in her thesis introduction. "I have found that at Princeton, no matter how liberal and open-minded some of my white professors and classmates try to be toward me, I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as if I really don't belong. Regardless of the circumstances underwhich I interact with whites at Princeton, it often seems as if, to them, I will always be black first and a student second."

The thesis, titled "Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community" and written under her maiden name, Michelle LaVaughn Robinson, in 1985, has been the subject of much conjecture on the blogosphere and elsewhere in recent weeks, as it has been "temporarily withdrawn" from Princeton's library until after this year's presidential election in November. Some of the material has been written about previously, however, including a story last year in the Newark Star Ledger.

Obama writes that the path she chose by attending Princeton would likely lead to her "further integration and/or assimilation into a white cultural and social structure that will only allow me to remain on the periphery of society; never becoming a full participant."

During a presidential contest in which the term "transparency" has been frequently bandied about, candidates have buried a number of potentially revealing documents and papers. In Hillary Rodham Clinton's case, there's been a clamoring for tax records, White House memos and other material the candidate's team has chosen to keep from release. The 96-page Princeton thesis, restricted from release by the school's Mudd Library, has also been the subject of recent scrutiny.

Earlier this week, commentator Jonah Goldberg remarked on National Review Online, "A reader in the know informs me that Michelle Obama's thesis ... is unavailable until Nov. 5, 2008, at the Princeton library. I wonder why."

"Why a restricted thesis?" asked blogger-pastor Louis Lapides on his site Thinking Outside the Blog. "Is the concern based on what's in the thesis? Will Michelle Obama appear to be too black for white America or not black enough for black America?"

Attempts to retrieve the document through Princeton proved unsuccessful, with school librarians having been pestered so much for access to the thesis that they have resorted to reading from a script when callers inquire about it. Media officers at the prestigious university were similarly unhelpful, claiming it is "not unusual" for a thesis to be restricted and refusing to discuss "the academic work of alumni."

The Obama campaign, however, quickly responded to a request for the thesis by Politico. The thesis offers several fascinating insights into the mind of Michelle Obama, who has been a passionate advocate of her husband's presidential aspirations and who has made several controvesial statements, including this week's remark, "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country." That comment has fueled debate on countless blogs, radio talk shows and cable news for days on end, causing her to explain the statement in greater detail.

The 1985 thesis provides a trove of Michelle Obama's thoughts as a young woman, with many of the paper's statements describing the student's world as seen through a race-based prism.

"In defining the concept of identification or the ability to identify with the black community," the Princeton student wrote, "I based my definition on the premise that there is a distinctive black culture very different from white culture." Other thesis statements specifically pointed to what was seen by the future Mrs. Obama as racially insensitive practices in a university system populated with mostly Caucasian educators and students: "Predominately white universities like Princeton are socially and academically designed to cater to the needs of the white students comprising the bulk of their enrollments."

To illustrate the latter statement, she pointed out that Princeton (at the time) had only five black tenured professors on its faculty, and its "Afro-American studies" program "is one of the smallest and most understaffed departments in the university." In addition, she said only one major university-recognized group on campus was "designed specifically for the intellectual and social interests of blacks and other third world students." (Her findings also stressed that Princeton was "infamous for being racially the most conservative of the Ivy League universities.")

Perhaps one of the most germane subjects approached in the thesis is a section in which she conveyed views about political relations between black and white communities. She quotes the work of sociologists James Conyers and Walter Wallace, who discussed "integration of black official(s) into various aspects of politics" and notes "problems which face these black officials who must persuade the white community that they are above issues of race and that they are representing all people and not just black people," as opposed to creating "two separate social structures."

To research her thesis, the future Mrs. Obama sent an 18-question survey to a sampling of 400 black Princeton graduates, requesting the respondents define the amount of time and "comfort" level spent interacting with blacks and whites before they attended the school, as well as during and after their University years. Other questions dealt with their individual religious beliefs, living arrangements, careers, role models, economic status, and thoughts about lower class blacks. In addition, those surveyed were asked to choose whether they were more in line with a "separationist and/or pluralist" viewpoint or an "integrationist and/or assimilationist" ideology.

Just under 90 alums responded to the questionnaires (for a response rate of approximately 22 percent) and the conclusions were not what she expected. "I hoped that these findings would help me conclude that despite the high degree of identification with whites as a result of the educational and occupational path that black Princeton alumni follow, the alumni would still maintain a certain level of identification with the black community. However, these findings do not support this possibility."

He Is Who He Is
Tony Blankley
Wednesday, August 06, 2008

It's getting tricky to know how to refer to he who presumes to be the next president. It was made clear several months ago that mentioning his middle name is a forbidden act. (Pass out more eggshells.) Then, having nothing honorable to say, Obama warned his followers last week that Sen. McCain would try to scare voters by pointing to Obama's "funny name" and the fact that "he doesn't look like all the presidents on the dollar bills."

Now, putting aside for the moment the racial component of His warning, what are we to make of the "funny name" reference? Many people have "funny" names. Some people think my last name -- being very close in spelling to the adverbial form for the absence of content -- is funny. Certainly, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's name is funny. Many on the left have had great fun with President Bush's last name. But we all have found our names perfectly serviceable and would expect people to call us by the names by which we identify ourselves.

But He has made it clear that the mere use of His name would be freighted with coded innuendoes of something too horrible to say straightforwardly. One has to go back to Exodus 3:13-14 to find such strict instructions concerning the use of a name. Moses explained: "Indeed, when I come to the children of Israel and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they say to me, 'What is His name?' what shall I say to them?" And God said to Moses, "I Am Who I Am." And He said, "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, 'I Am has sent me to you.'"

So perhaps we can call Him, for short, Sen. I Am (full code name: I Am who you have been waiting for).

Another aspect of the now-infamous dollar-bill incident that has gone unmentioned is Sen. I Am's choice of the dollar-bill reference itself. He could have just said He doesn't look like other presidents. Even that is a little too cute for the nasty little point He slyly was trying to make, but at least He would be identifying Himself merely with the universe of American presidents. But His overweening pride found such company too base and demeaning for Him. So He needed to include Himself in the grander company of George Washington, Abe Lincoln, Jefferson and perhaps Andy Jackson. (I doubt He had in mind Woodrow Wilson on the $100,000 bill or Grover Cleveland on the $1,000.)

Perhaps I shouldn't dwell on these matters, but the more I watch this man the more stunned I am at His overconfidence and towering pride. I have known a number of great and powerful men (and read biographies of many more), and they surely don't lack confidence or ego. But who among the great would have answered the question posed to the junior senator from Illinois a few weeks ago as He did? Asked whether He had any doubts, He said "never." Is He so foolish as to think He has the world figured out to the last detail, or is He so proud of His intelligence that He cannot confess to ever having any doubt? Either explanation renders His judgment of dubious presidential caliber.

Here is a man who talked almost contemptuously of Gen. Petraeus. Explaining His differences with the general, He said that His "job is to think about the national security interest as a whole; (the generals') job is just to get their job done (in Iraq)." Of course, right at the moment, the junior senator from Illinois doesn't yet have "His" job, while Gen. Petraeus, as confirmed Centcom commander, has direct responsibility for both Afghanistan and Iraq and everything in between and around them. But in the mind of Sen. I Am, He already is, while He thinks the man who is perhaps our greatest general in two generations is just another flunky carrying out routine orders. It is repulsive to see such a mentality in a man who would be president.

All of us have our shortcomings, of course. But there is none so dangerous both to a man and to those for whom he has responsibility than the sin of pride. In the sixth century, Pope Gregory the Great recognized that pride breeds all the other sins and is therefore the most serious offense. St. Thomas Aquinas reaffirmed that pride is rebellion against the very authority of God.

Let me quote a private e-mail correspondent, who states the case better than I could: "Pride indeed is the cardinal vice -- it swings open the door to most of the other theological vices, and undermines the classical virtues of prudence, courage and justice. It thrives, not on what one has, but on what others do not have. And even when one has diligently practiced the most admirable virtues, there always lurks the danger that at some moment one will look in the mirror and say: 'Oh my! What a wonderful person I am!' Thus does the vice lunge from its hiding-place."

For a man, his personality is his destiny. If he becomes president, his flaws become the nation's dangers. The voters must judge carefully both the personalities and the ideas of those who would be president.

Forgetting the Evils of Communism
Jonah Goldberg
Wednesday, August 06, 2008

Alexander Solzhenitsyn is dead. Peter Rodman is dead. And memory is dying with them.

Over the weekend, Solzhenitsyn, the 89-year-old literary titan, and Rodman, the American foreign policy intellectual, passed away. I knew Rodman and liked him very much. We were partners in a debate at Oxford University last year. He provided the gravitas. A former protege of Henry Kissinger and high-ranking official in two Republican administrations, Rodman was one of the wisest of the wise men of the conservative foreign policy establishment. Calm, elegant, dryly funny, brilliant, but most of all gentlemanly. He died too young, at 64, of leukemia.

Solzhenitsyn was, of course, a landmark of the 20th century, one of the few authors capable of elevating literature to the stuff of world affairs.

What I admired most in both men was their memory. They remembered important things, specifically the evil of communism. And, perhaps nearly as important, they remembered who recognized that evil and who did not.

Rodman, for example, was an architect of the Reagan Doctrine in places such as Angola and Afghanistan. One of his books, "More Precious Than Peace: The Cold War and the Struggle for the Third World," was the quintessential defense of thwarting the Soviets in ugly spots of the globe where Americans were understandably reluctant to spend blood or treasure.

In Berlin on July 24, Barack Obama's history of the Cold War sounded cheerier. There was a lot of unity and "standing as one," and we dropped some candy on Berlin, and now we need to be unified like we were then.

But unity was hardly the defining feature of the Cold War. There were supposed allies reluctant to help and official enemies who were eager to do their share. There were Russians - like Solzhenitsyn - who bravely told the world about Soviet barbarity. Here at home, there were a great many Americans, including intellectual heirs to the "useful idiots" Lenin relied on, who rolled their eyes at self-styled "cold warriors" such as Rodman. And from Vietnam through the SANE/Freeze movement, liberal resolve and unity were aimed most passionately against America's policies - not the Soviet Union's.

Having recently published a book on fascism, I think I understand why so many people refused to see the evil in communism. It was well-intentioned. The Soviets were our allies in World War II. Communists spoke of socialism and liberation, and their agents, friends and apologists in the U.S. were comrades in arms with Americans battling racism. But it's worth remembering how evil Communist governments really were. Stalin murdered more people than Hitler. The hammer-and-sickle's stack of bones towers high above the swastika's. "The Black Book of Communism," a scholarly accounting of communism's crimes, counts about 94 million murdered by the supposed champions of the common man (20 million for the Soviets alone), and some say that number is too low.

If, after the moral cataclysm that was the Holocaust, you wish to say that the Nazis were more evil than the Soviets, fine. But don't roll your eyes at serious people who consider anti-communism no less honorable and righteous than anti-Nazism. Look to the Holomodor in Ukraine, where 4 million to 6 million people were murdered and a culture largely erased. Terror, purges, massacres, assassinations and the forced starvation of millions - these are all horrors that we rightly associate with Nazism but somehow fail to correlate with communism.

In 1974, when the New Yorker reviewed Solzhenitsyn's "The Gulag Archipelago," George Steiner wrote: "To infer that the Soviet Terror is as hideous as Hitlerism is not only a brutal oversimplification but a moral indecency." When Ronald Reagan denounced the "evil empire" - because it was evil and it was an empire - he too was accused of absurd oversimplification.

The real brutal oversimplification is the treacle we hear from Obama, that victory in the Cold War was some Hallmark-movie lesson in global hand-holding. The reality is that it was a long slog, and throughout, the champions of "unity" wanted to capitulate to this evil, and the champions of freedom were rewarded with ridicule.

"This is the moment," Obama proclaimed, "when every nation in Europe must have the chance to choose its own tomorrow free from the shadows of yesterday." Rodman and Solzhenitsyn understood that such talk was dangerously naive. People free from the "shadows of yesterday" forget things they swore never to forget.

Solzhenitsyn and Rodman are gone now, and a generation that learned such hard lessons is leaving us too quickly. The amnesia bites a little deeper.

The Chávez Democrats
March 10, 2008

What is it about Democrats and Hugo Chávez? Even as the Venezuelan strongman was threatening war last week against Colombia, Congress was threatening to hand him a huge strategic victory by spurning Colombia's free trade overtures to the U.S.

This isn't the first time Democrats have come to Mr. Chávez's aid, but it would be the most destructive. The Venezuelan is engaged in a high-stakes competition over the political and economic direction of Latin America. He wants the region to follow his path of ever greater state control of the economy, while assisting U.S. enemies wherever he can. He's already won converts in Bolivia and Ecuador, and he came far too close for American comfort in Mexico's election last year.

Meanwhile, Colombian President Álvaro Uribe is embracing greater economic and political freedom. He has bravely assisted the U.S fight against narco-traffickers, and he now wants to link his country more closely to America with a free-trade accord. As a strategic matter, to reject Colombia's offer now would tell everyone in Latin America that it is far more dangerous to trust America than it is to trash it.

Yet Democrats on Capitol Hill are doing their best to help Mr. Chávez prevail against Mr. Uribe. Even as Mr. Chávez was doing his war dance, Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus was warning the White House not to send the Colombia deal to the Hill for a vote without the permission of Democratic leaders. He was seconded by Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel, who told Congress Daily that "they don't have the votes for it, it's not going to come on the floor," adding that "what they [the White House] don't understand it's not the facts on the ground, it's the politics that's in the air."

Mr. Rangel is right about the politics. No matter what U.S. strategic interests may be in Colombia, this is an election year in America. And Democrats don't want to upset their union and anti-trade allies. The problem is that the time available to pass anything this year is growing short. The closer the election gets, the more leverage protectionists have to run out the clock on the Bush Presidency. The deal has the support of a bipartisan majority in the Senate, and probably also in the House. Sooner or later the White House will have to force the issue.

Our guess is that Messrs. Baucus and Rangel understand the stakes and privately favor the accord. The bottleneck is Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is refusing to allow a vote under pressure from her left-wing Members. These Democrats deride any link between Hugo Chávez and trade as a "scare tactic," as if greater economic prosperity had no political consequences. "President Bush's recent fear-mongering on trade shows just how desperate he is to deliver one final victory for multinational corporations," declared Illinois Democrat Phil Hare, who is one of Ms. Pelosi's main trade policy deputies.

These are the same Democrats who preach the virtues of "soft power" and diplomacy, while deriding Mr. Bush for being too quick to use military force. But trade is a classic form of soft power that would expand U.S. and Latin ties in a web of commercial interests. More than 8,000 U.S. companies currently export to Colombia, nearly 85% of which are small and medium-sized firms. Colombia is already the largest South American market for U.S. farm products, and the pact would open Colombia to new competition and entrepreneurship.

Which brings us back to Mr. Chávez and his many Democratic friends. Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd's early support helped the strongman consolidate his power. Former President Jimmy Carter blessed Mr. Chávez's August 2004 recall victory, despite evidence of fraud. And then there are the many House Democrats, current and former, who have accepted discount oil from Venezuela and then distributed it in the U.S. to boost their own political fortunes. Joseph P. Kennedy II and Massachusetts Congressman Bill Delahunt have been especially cozy with Venezuela's oil company. If Democrats spurn free trade with Colombia, these Democratic ties with Mr. Chávez will deserve more political scrutiny.

Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are both competing for union support. But if they wanted to demonstrate their own Presidential qualities, they'd be privately telling Ms. Pelosi to pass the Colombia pact while Mr. Bush is still in office. That would spare either one of them from having to spend political capital to pass it next year.

Instead, both say they oppose the deal on grounds that Mr. Uribe has not done more to protect "trade unionists." In fact, Mr. Uribe has done more to reduce violence in Colombia than any modern leader in Bogotá. The real question for Democrats is whether they're going to choose Colombia -- or Hugo Chávez.

The Democrats' Big Problem: The War In Iraq Wasn't About Oil
Ben Shapiro
Wednesday, August 06, 2008

This 2008 presidential election cycle has been jam-packed with irony. John McCain has been forced to rely on the 527 groups he so despises; Barack Obama has been denounced by members of the black community but embraced by upper class whites; the Clintons have been rejected by the very media that put them in power.

But perhaps the most ironic fact of the 2008 election cycle is this: John McCain will win the 2008 election because the war in Iraq was not a war for oil.

Since the liberation of Iraq in March 2003, liberals have been screaming that the war to remove Saddam Hussein and his henchmen was a facade. They have been shouting for years on end that the real reason for U.S. presence in Iraq was to secure resources for the Exxon/Mobils of the world. They have been shrieking that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, oilmen both, hijacked American foreign policy to pad their pocketbooks.

There was only one problem with that logic, of course: The price of oil has been skyrocketing since the invasion of Iraq. As of March 2003, the price of oil was well under $40 per barrel. The price of oil is now nearly $120 per barrel, and within the last few weeks it has been above $140 per barrel. If the war in Iraq was a war to open the resource floodgates for Big Oil, it was a massive failure.

The war in Iraq was never about oil, of course. And that simple fact, ironically enough, spells doom for Democrats. With oil prices ridiculously high, Americans are demanding that Congress open domestic territory to oil exploration -- and Democrats are stonewalling. House Republicans are demanding that Congress allow drilling; Democrats are denying an up-or-down vote. And Americans don't like it at all.

Only 14 percent of Americans now approve of Congress' no-drilling energy policy. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's anti-drilling, "save the world" strategy is making her dramatically unpopular -- so unpopular that she is secretly telling Congressional Democrats to vote for drilling. And Barack Obama -- who just recently suggested that Americans ought to focus on properly inflating their car tires in order to best conserve gasoline -- is now backtracking on his no-offshore-drilling pledge.

If the war in Iraq had been about oil, Democrats would be sitting in the catbird seat right now. The price of gasoline would be less than half its current price; Americans would be willing to countenance the Luddite idiocy of the no-drilling Dems. Instead, Americans are steaming over high gasoline prices, and they are rightfully blaming the left.

All of which makes Barack Obama's candidacy look increasingly tenuous. When Obama was nominated, his two major policy selling points were opposition to the war in Iraq and hard-core environmentalism. At the time, those policies looked like a road to success in the general election.

But times have changed. The war in Iraq is going well, thanks to the surge promoted by McCain. Obama has struggled to deal with this on-the-ground reality, thickly suggesting instead that had his immediate withdrawal strategy been pursued, the situation on the ground would be even better in Iraq. Obama's McGovernite anti-war position and his refusal to acknowledge the great work done by our troops now puts him on the wrong side of history.

The real killer for Obama, however, is his deep green environmentalism. Obama opposes drilling -- or at least he did until this week, and Americans don't trust that Obama has completely overcome his knee-jerk anti-drilling attitudes.

For Obama, his biggest strength -- opposition to the war in Iraq on both security grounds and on grounds that it was a war for oil -- now constitutes his biggest weakness. His biggest problem is that the war in Iraq wasn't about oil. If it had been, perhaps he'd still be leading in the polls.

Obama receives illegal funds from 'terrorist hotbed'

According to Federal Election Commission filings, Barack Obama has received illegal donations from Palestinians living in Gaza, a hotbed of Hamas terrorists.

Obama received more than $24,000 in campaign contributions over a period of two months last fall from three Palestinian brothers from the "Edwan" family in Rafah, Gaza, which is a Hamas stronghold along the border with Egypt. The story was uncovered by Pamela Geller of the Atlas Shrugs blog.

He probably had dinner with these guys during is trip.

Though liberals do a great deal of talking about hearing other points of view, it sometimes shocks them to learn that there ARE other points of view.

A Nation of Thieves
Walter E. Williams
Wednesday, August 06, 2008

Edgar K. Browning, professor of economics at Texas A&M University, has a new book aptly titled "Stealing from Each Other." Its subtitle, "How the Welfare State Robs Americans of Money and Spirit," goes to the heart of what the book is about. The rise of equalitarian ideology has driven Americans to steal from one another. Browning explains that certain kinds of equality have been a cherished value in America. Equality under the law and, within reason, equality of opportunity is consistent with a free society. Equality of results is an anathema to a free society and within it lie the seeds of tyranny.

Browning entertains a discussion about when inequalities are just or unjust. For example, college graduates earn income higher than high-school dropouts. Some people prefer to work many hours and earn more than others who prefer to work fewer. Students who spend 25 or more hours a week on classroom preparation earn higher grades than students who spend five hours. Most would agree that these inequalities are just. There are other sources of inequalities that are unjust, such as: when incomes result from fraud, corruption, stealing, exploitation, oppression and the like. Such sources of inequality play an insignificant role in producing income inequality in America. Most economists agree that income is closely related to productivity.

Much of the justification for the welfare state is to reduce income inequality by making income transfers to the poor. Browning provides some statistics that might help us to evaluate the sincerity and truthfulness of this claim. In 2005, total federal, state and local government expenditures on 85 welfare programs were $620 billion. That's larger than national defense ($495 billion) or public education ($472 billion). The 2005 official poverty count was 37 million persons. That means welfare expenditures per poor person were $16,750, or $67,000 for a poor family of four.

Those figures understate poverty expenditures because poor people are recipients of non-welfare programs such as Social Security, Medicare, private charity and uncompensated medical care. The question that naturally arises is if we're spending enough to lift everyone out of poverty, why is there still poverty? The obvious answer is poor people are not receiving all the money being spent in their name. Non-poor people are getting the bulk of it.

Browning's concluding chapter tells us what the welfare state costs us. He acknowledges the non-economic costs such as infringements on liberty and strains on the political process, but focuses on the quantitative economic costs. The disincentive effects of Social Security have reduced the GDP by 10 percent, the federal income tax (as opposed to a proportional tax) by 9 percent and past deficits by 3.5 percent for a total of 22.5 percent. He guesses that welfare programs have reduced GDP by 2.5 percent. The overall effect of redistributionist policies has created incentives that have reduced GDP by a total of 25 percent. Without those, our GDP would be close to $18 trillion instead of $14 trillion.

So what's Browning's solution? First, he reminds us of the biblical admonition "Thou shalt not steal." Government income redistribution programs produce the same result as theft. In fact, that's what a thief does; he redistributes income. The difference between government and thievery is mostly a matter of legality. Browning's solution is captured in the title of his last chapter, "Just Say No," where he proposes, "The federal government shall not adopt any policies that transfer income (resources) from some Americans to other Americans." He agrees with James Madison, the father of our Constitution, who said, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

For years I've used Professor Browning's and his colleague Mark A. Zupan's excellent textbook "Microeconomics: Price Theory and Applications" in my intermediate microeconomics class. "Stealing from Each Other" is a continuation of his academic excellence.

Suggestion for a campaign ad:

Notice that Obama salutes his crotch while the national anthem is playing while John saluting the flag normally? Which man would you rather see as president?

Michelle & Barack's "changes" are focused upon cradle-to-grave big government, more laws, more taxes, more separatism/multiculturalism, devisiveness and racism (the black community instead of assimilation and integration, and more aid to Africa rather than helping people in the U.S. or helping other countries equally), and point out that the reason this country was founded was to get away from big government and too many taxes -- remind people about what the Boston Tea Party was all about.

Posted July 24, 2008 19:31
What a charlatan this empty suit Hussein showed today in Berlin. The crowd there did not speak English however they were there to see and hear a notable Rock Band for free.Husseins statement that he was head of the Banking Committee , an out and out lie.If this creep does not know what committee he reports to in Washington how is going to manage the Nuclear trigger. This elitist twirp downplaying the USA in a foreign country. His history lesson of the Berlin Air Lift and the consequent suffering of the German People, time out, where was this idiot when the Iraqi people were being slaughtered by Saddam Hussein? (no relation to Obama)

The Germans have always shown good taste in selecting their leaders, and they do love their political rallies.  I for one, am glad they will not be electing our leader:


Beware of politicians who promise change without explaining exactly what kinds of changes they have in mind!

There were two popular German bands giving a free concert to attact a crowd.

The Moshpit of America-haters await Obama.

IBD reported:

Obama may demand on the campaign trail that no one dare question his patriotism, but for Germans, disliking the U.S. is nothing to hide. Yet this is the place Obama's team thought would be best to hold a rally to boost his campaign.

Pew's 2008 survey found that 34% of Germans don't like Americans at all or in part, and 61% regard the U.S. as headed for something like history's ash heap, to be supplanted by China.

That is relevant to why Germans are cheering for Obama. He has consistently expounded a worldview that espouses the moral equivalency of nations, rather than importance of U.S. leadership. He's a big fan of letting the U.N. make America's foreign policy decisions, consistent with shrinking U.S. influence in the world...

Heck, it was a battle just to get him, a candidate for the highest office in the land, to pin an American flag to his lapel. No wonder they cheer Obama in Germany.

Don't expect to see this reported by the mainstream media.

More... The US Embassy told its staff to stay away from the "partisan political activity" today.

OBAMA Lures Massive German Crowd With Rock Bands, Brats & Beer! (http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/07/obama-lures-massive-german-crowd-with.html)

Obama is so tasteless as to move to Hitler's Victory Column directly from the Wailing Wall. Am I the only person to think there is something a tad amiss there. Or perhaps Obama people failed to note Victory Column put up after 'victory' over Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, etc., etc.

Anonymous said...
That is the German's SOCIALIST Victory Column. It was built to celebrate the victory of Germany during the socialist political world wide movement; and it was magnified by the NAZI socialists in their pursuit of world domination. So do take note of Obamarx's public positioning at the German Socialist's Victory Column. The Germans as individuals, business interests, and as governing interests, are placing their bid to buy the USA. The EU are buying their share of Obamarx. German tax money and German media broadcasts and publication expenditures provide this Marxist POTUS hOpeful political contributions.

So what are the legal stipulations on international contributions spent for a POTUS candidate?! Who is keeping track of Obama's international contributions?!


maverick muse

twolaneflash said...
Germans. They love their totalitarian order, and Barry sings their tune. Obama will have to step it up a notch, somewhere around Wright's God-damn-America level to really win this mob. Throw in a "Wir mussen die Juden zerstoren." ("We must destroy the Jews.") or two and Obama will have the Wehrmacht ready to go to Paris with him. Hide the white yarmulka, BO, it won't play well in Berlin.

DirtCrashr said...
Fascism was a Youth-Movement too, and the Itlaian Communist student uprising in the early 70's was the same. People who don't get that they are simply two different hats are mentally crippled.

Brian said...
Gee, I was going to vote for the Geezer but I want the Germans to like us again, so I am going to now vote for Obama.

Seriously, of course they love Obama the Socialist. Germans would vote back in the Berlin Wall and Commies in an election between them and Bush.

Joanne said...
Gee, for all America has done for the Germans, and they still hate Americans. America should have helped rebuild Britain, their brother, instead of helping to rebuild Germany who would hate Americans either way: a lesson to learn from.

Takekaze said...
Wrong. The "Siegessäule" is a lot older than that. It was part of the Reichstag and was placed where it is today by Adolf Hitler. It used to sit around at the Reichstag. Originally it was a symbol of victory over the French, Austrians, etc, of the wars in the 19th century and a monument of the newly formed German empire.

When I was a kid, Germany used to be a country we'd look up to. It was the "big brother", the successful, powerful one. Lot of my mates from school wanted to go to Germany.

When I look at it today... I'm disgusted. The party of Wall shooters (known as Die Linke, the followup of the GDR's SED) and other leftist morons get a large number of votes in every election. Green party *^*@! (leftists, they love Arab terrorists and spit on Israel) tell the Germans that the rising violence by islamo-fascists in Germany is something the Germans have to cope with and to accept. The police got castrated completely (they can't even draw their guns when they are surrounded by 50 islamo-fascists; they were not allowed to fly little German flags on the cars during the soccer championship this year -while one of their higher-ups had no problems raising the rainbow flag at a police station at christopher street day). German media is 100% anti-American and anti-Israel. Yet, the same media keeps telling the Germans that they are guilty of the holocaust. Dead Jews mean a lot in Germany, living Jews... well... Let's just say they'd better be dead in order to get some attention in Germany. I know how harsh that sounds, but that's how it is. They waste millions every year for the "fight against right wing extremism", yet chances for one to get mugged by foreigners from certain "cultures" or leftists are a lot higher than getting beaten up by neo-nazis these days.

Germany is really bad these days.

Oh, and during the soccer championship in Austria, some Green party moron complained about people in Germany showing the German flag. Yep, those idiots consider the modern German flag, Black-Red-Gold, the flag of the revolution of 1848 (where workers, citizens and students rose up against the despots and wanted only one thing: freedom), to be as bad as the Nazi flag.

Anonymous said...
All one needs to do is look at all the countries that have abandoned Socialisim: Italy, the British, Germany and France -- and I'll bet Austrailia will again after their taste of Socialism.

greenfairie said...
I just hope people in West Virginia, Nebraska, North Dakota, and the rest of "flyover country" remember Mr. Citizen of the World would rather stump for a bunch of drunken leftist Berliners than in their backyards.

Translation: German » English
Ich bin ein appeaser. Ich bin ein pretzlmacher. Ich bin ein soldat hospitaler visitatzen cutnrunneran.
Wenn das Gehen stark, erhält, geht der Demokrat Obamanation.
The Obamanation is getting to be as great an embarassment as Djimmah Carter.   I am an appeaser. I am a pretzlmacher. I am a soldier hospitaler visitatzen cutnrunneran.
If going strong, receives, the Democrat Obamanation.
The Obamanation is getting to be as great an embarrassment as Djimmah Carter.

Anonymous said...
just what we need, a country full of socialists that we have to keep bailing their butts out all the time picking our president, has there ever been a more brain dead bunch of peeple in one place at one time since they were cheering for Hilter, i think not.

Anonymous said...
Once the media tells the story of Larry Sinclair and his gay sex with Obama together with smoking crack,  Obama will lose.


Anonymous said...
Obama will create biggest re-distribution of Wealth in American history.

His plans are to tax hard working Small Businesses at 50% and give the money to entitlement programs for people who do not want to work hard... sounds like socialism to me.


The Obama spend-o-meter is now up around $800 billion. And tax hikes on the rich won't pay for it. - Lawrence Kudlow

Just to make it clearer, Kudlow goes on:

"It's the middle class that will ultimately shoulder this fiscal burden in terms of higher taxes and lower growth..."

$800 billion... that's a staggering figure! 

Just to put it in perspective, the United States government collected approximately $2.6 trillion in revenues in 2007. 

$800 billion is 30% of that figure!  $800 billion would represent the GREATEST EXPANSION OF GOVERNMENT in the history of the United States!

To put it in further perspective $800 billion is about $6800.00 per household or $2700.00 per every man, woman and child in the United States! 

And YOU get to pay for it!

Kudlow lists just a few of Obama's goals:

 $150 billion on a green-energy plan.

 an infrastructure investment bank to the tune of $60 billion.

 an expansion of health insurance by roughly $65 billion.

Steve Moore, writing for The Wall Street Journal did the math. The Weekly Standard quotes him as saying that Obama's tax schemes will add up to a: "39.6 percent personal income tax, a 52.2 percent combined income and payroll tax, a 28 percent capital-gains tax, a 39.6 percent dividends tax and a 55 percent estate tax."


"[T]he windfall profits tax was forecasted to raise more than $320 billion between 1980 and 1989. However, according to the CRS, the government collected only $80 billion in gross tax revenue ($146 billion in 2004 dollars). The net amount was actually less than this -- roughly $40 billion -- because the tax was deductible against corporate income."

"CRS also found the windfall profits tax had the effect of decreasing domestic production by 3 percent to 6 percent, thereby increasing American dependence on foreign oil sources by 8 percent to 16 percent. A side effect was declining, not increasing, tax collections. Figure 1 clearly shows that while the tax raised considerable revenue in the initial years following its enactment, those revenues declined to almost nothing as the domestic industry collapsed."

So who is going to pay for President Barack Hussein Obama's grand income redistribution scheme?

You can be certain of this much... that $1000.00 check will come in handy -- if it ever comes -- particularly when the price of gasoline at the pump goes up even further, the taxes collected from the oil companies drops to 'nada', and Obama searches for other sources of revenue to make up the difference!

Who Is Going To Pay For All This?

According to Obama's campaign website:

"Barack Obama is the only candidate who has a real middle class relief plan he will provide $1,000 in a refundable tax credit to working families, create a universal mortgage interest credit for homeowners who can't benefit from a mortgage tax incentive available to wealthier Americans, and create a $4,000 college tax credit for middle class families."

"Obama will eliminate all income taxation of seniors making less than $50,000 per year. This will provide an immediate tax cut averaging $1,400 to 7 million seniors and relieve millions from the burden of filing tax returns."

$1,400 x 7 million... That's $9.8 billion.

A $1,000 tax credit and a $4,000 college tuition credit... we're talking hundreds of billion of dollars!

Who is going to pay for all of this?


That is, if it happens at all...

Remember what happened the last time a Democrat running for president promised a middle-class tax cut?

In his very first campaign ad which aired in January of 1992 Bill Clinton stated:

"I'm Bill Clinton and I believe that you deserve more than 30-second ads and vague promises. That's why I've offered a comprehensive plan to get our economy moving again, to take care of our own people, and regain our economic leadership. It starts with a tax cut for the middle class and asks the rich to pay their fair share."

Within days of taking office, Clinton reneged on that promise. On nationwide television he said he 'tried as hard as he could' but just couldn't deliver! At least he 'felt our pain'. You could see the heartfelt agony in his face over breaking that promise!

And then it only took him about TWO MONTHS to push the largest tax increase in United States history on the American people through Congress! It was one of his top priorities!

And like Bill Clinton, Barack Hussein Obama was never shy about taxes.

At the Democratic Presidential Debate at Howard University on June 28, 2007, Obama said:

"And the Bush tax cuts--people didn't need them, and they weren't even asking for them, and that's why they need to be less, so that we can pay for universal health care and other initiatives."

In his response to the 2008 State of the Union Address, Obama stated:

"[W]e know that at a time of war and economic hardship, the last thing we need is a permanent tax cut for Americans who don't need them and weren't even asking for them."

When questioned on the issue of taxes at the Democratic Presidential Debate in Los Angeles, California on January 30, 2008, Obama proudly boasted: "I'm not bashful about it."

A middle-class tax cut?

It won't happen! 

If we're lucky, Barack Hussein Obama will give with one hand and take (a greater amount) with the other!  'Obama giveth and Obama taketh away' (after all, some have called him a "messiah").

That's why we call it, 'income redistribution!'

Giving Your Money To The World...

But Obama's income redistribution schemes don't stop at the shores of the United States!

Let us not forget Barack Hussein Obama's Global Poverty Act -- a bill that lays the groundwork for -- according to some estimates -- what could amount to a $845 billion United Nations tax on the people of the United States!

And just how much is $845 billion?

Vincent Gioia, writing in Right Side News, translates this incomprehensible figure into language every American understands:

"This amounts to a tax of over $2,000 on each man, woman and child in the United States. The foreign aid budget now stands at $300 billion; the Act would add the additional expenditure to the already huge amount allocated to assist the world."

But wait a minute, folks! The Global Poverty Act is part of a much larger United Nations scheme.

The United Nations' Millennium Development Goal -- proclaimed in 2000 -- contains plans for the additional plundering of your bank account.

Among their stated goals are:

a "currency transfer tax," -- that is, a tax imposed on companies and individuals who, in the course of traveling or doing international business, must exchange dollars for foreign currency;

a "tax on the rental value of land and natural resources;"

and "fees for the commercial use of the oceans, fees for airplane use of the skies, fees for the use of the electromagnetic spectrum... and a tax on the carbon content of fuels."

Obama's Plans Spell Economic Doom
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann

Barack Obama had it half right when he said that the McCain campaign would focus on raising voters' fears about him.

He was wrong in saying that the chief point of attack would be that he "doesn't look like all those other presidents on dollar bills." He wishes that were it.

But McCain does need to raise fears about Obama; that is, play on voters' worries about electing a man they don't know who has only a few years of experience in federal office. (Indeed, Obama's only been in the Senate since 2005, and he spent most of 2007 and 2008 running for president, paying almost no attention to his duties in the Senate, as witness his absentee record.)

These fears will focus on two key areas: the economy and national security.

McCain needs voters to hear repeatedly, from top economists and office-holders, that Obama's tax-hike plans spell economic doom. The campaign must explain that Obama is not simply raising taxes on the rich, he's crippling their ability to generate jobs, make investments and produce wealth. (For example: "When Obama says he'll only tax the rich, he's saying he will only tax the engine room, not the rest of the ship.")

The public must learn what the impact of doubling the tax on capital gains would be — how it would drive investment out of the country and cost us one to two points a year in economic growth for the rest of the decade.

Voters must hear how Obama can't possibly finance his programs — particularly his health-insurance schemes — with the tax hikes he's advocating. They need to ponder the impact of these tax hikes on an already slowing economy, it's legitimate to fear a new depression, not just a recession.

Economics is a field voters don't know much about and, consequently, fear greatly. Obama can capitalize on the current hard times, but he can lose big time if the impact of his tax policies is explained.

On national security, events could take over and put the issue center stage. But McCain must lay the groundwork to take advantage of whatever situation develops. He needs to hammer home the accusation that Obama is "naive" and "inexperienced" — both of which are obviously true.

He should run ads mocking Obama's claim that Iran is a "tiny nation" that could pose no real threat to the United States. He needs to hit hard at Obama's plans for Iraq and Afghanistan, hammer at Obama's opposition to the surge and refusal to vote to pay for the troops.

The offshore-drilling issue helps McCain, but it doesn't conjure the kind of fear that national security and the economy do. McCain has a long task ahead of him of burying Obama's credibility on these issues, and he needs to begin right away.

For better or worse, this election is about Obama. It is a referendum on the Democratic candidate and his agenda of change. McCain is a well-known commodity: Voter opinions of him are not likely to change much in the next three months. But their view of Obama is subject to wild fluctuation.

That's why the undecided vote right now is running at twice its 2004 percentage at this time in the race. That's why older women are withholding their approval of Obama.

McCain can and must use August to tilt these doubts into negatives. 

Bad Economy May Hurt Obama
Thursday, August 7, 2008 10:07 AM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann

The conventional wisdom has it down pat: A bad economy works against the candidate from the party in power as voters take out their rage and fear on the president's party and back the challenger, just like they did in 1992. But this is not a normal economic slowdown (or recession) and Obama is not a normal challenger.

I think the conventional wisdom may be dead wrong.

It is not so much that unemployment is so high (5.7 percent) or that the economy is in the tank (1 percent growth this quarter) as that everything seems to be falling apart. Banks are under assault, mortgages are in default, and quasi-government agencies like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac need bailouts, financial institutions go hat in had to foreign sovereign wealth funds peddling shares of their equity in return for desperately needed cash, the cost of filling a gas tank has tripled.

It is not the present circumstances that have voters freaked, it is the threats that seem to loom on the horizon.

And Obama is no ordinary challenger. Not like Bill Clinton, for example. In 1992, from the first moment the campaign started, Clinton billed himself as the expert who could solve the economy's problems. His promise to "focus like a laser beam" on the recession won him big points throughout the campaign.

His 10-year record as a governor and his chairmanship of the National Governors' Association all bolstered his credentials. But we first met Barack Obama as an advocate of racial and partisan healing and then as an opponent of the war in Iraq. When he tried to morph into an economic expert in time for the Ohio and Pennsylvania primaries, voters didn't buy it and voted for Hillary.

So the question that hangs over the election is, Are we prepared to trust a new candidate with almost no experience and no claim to economic expertise in the middle of one of the most threatening economic situations we have ever faced?

Add to this backdrop, Obama's pledge to raise taxes, and you have a combustible situation which could frighten American voters en masse. When, amid relative prosperity, Obama said he would restore fairness by raising taxes on the rich, it was well received, particularly in the Democratic primary.

Raising the top bracket to 40 percent seemed a no-brainer. Applying the Social Security tax to more earned income, not just to the first $100,000, seemed like elemental fairness and a good way to save the pension system. Restoring the capital gains tax to 28 percent appeared to comport with the notion that those whose income comes from investment should pay a tax closer to that paid on earned income (despite the argument that it is after tax money that they invested in the first place).

But now, with massive capital outflows crippling the public and private sectors, doubling the tax on capital seems like a very, very bad idea. And a sharp increase in taxes on the entrepreneurial class seems like a risky proposition.

And, besides, when a candidate starts raising taxes, who knows where he will stop once he is in office.

McCain can put economist after economist on the air to prophesy depression if Obama's plan for taxes is enacted. And the public will not be reassured by the Democrat's claims that his tax hikes are only on the rich.

It almost doesn't matter that McCain is not an economist and avows ignorance of what Thomas Carlyle called the "dismal science." We know McCain. We know he will surround himself with some pretty capable people and, above all, we know that he won't raise taxes.

Were these calmer times, with less of a threat from abroad and less economic danger, we might indulge our penchant for change and elect an ingénue in the hope that he will offer something different. We might be more easily captivated by his charisma. But, in these times, we may want to stay with the safer candidate.

Can Foreign Aid Save Africa? by Ron Paul

Congress is poised to pass the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) authorizing up to $50 million in unconstitutional foreign aid.  The bill passed out of the Foreign Affairs Committee with a bipartisan agreement to nearly double the President's requested amount.  It is always distressing to see officials in our government reach across the aisle to disregard Constitutional limitations.

Much of this aid will run through government-to-government channels and will be vulnerable to corruption.  Some of the aid will be sent to faith-based organizations who, along with accepting government largess, will now be subject to governmental controls and will soon become more dependent on taxpayer funding than private funds.  If they accept the aid, they must be careful of the vague language regarding what types of programs they can run.  For example, the requirement that 33f any funding received must go toward abstinence-only programs has been dropped and replaced with a 50equirement toward behavior change.  Many humanitarian organizations are incensed by the politicized requirements placed on their work, and feel they are being forced to continue failed programs at the expense of more effective ones.

The obvious question remains:  Why are politicians in the United States deciding what is best for people in Africa ?  And why are taxpayers in the United States being forced to fund –for example - family planning facilities that perform abortions?

In fact, Afrobarometer, a leading source of data on public attitudes in Africa asked Africans what their main developmental concerns were.  They found that Africans are much more concerned about jobs, agriculture and basic infrastructure than they are about health issues like AIDS.

Africans should decide what is best for Africa .  American taxpayers should decide what charities deserve their money.  Forcibly taking money from the United States and sending it overseas is unconstitutional and immoral.

The energy that lobbying groups and celebrities expend for charitable causes here on the Hill could be better put to use actually addressing problems.  It is sadly symptomatic of the trend toward bigger government that instead of private fundraising efforts, people put their hand out to Congress.  It is unfortunate that some activists prefer funding taken by force, to donations freely given.

These efforts, though well-meaning, are misguided.  The truth is all the foreign aid in the world will not transform Africa into a thriving, healthy continent.  The economic growth of Africa depends on African entrepreneurs, liberalized trade policies, and political and economic freedom.  The best thing we could possibly do for Africa and for our own country, is to stop sending misguided aid, and stop protectionist trade practices that prevent African farmers and producers from competing in our markets.  Perhaps then Africa's leaders would focus less on how to get aid out of the United States , and more on the economic vitality of their own countries.

Real Change by Ron Paul

One reason people are unhappy with the way politics and governments operate is that people who run for office are known to “say one thing and do another.”  Thus, we have the call for “change.”  Candidates for high office make frequent use of that word.  Even our House Republican Conference’s recently released slogan highlights that word.

Yet, bringing about change is easier said than done.  The American people are aware that government is broken and must be fixed.  They will demand more than lip service as our problems become more severe.

Change, then, cannot simply be a word.  It must be the right program, one that gets us out of this mess, not one that just accelerates us down the same treacherous path.  With our economy facing a perilous situation, the need to bring fiscal reform to our government is the cornerstone of the kind of change that is needed.  Real budgetary and monetary reform would signify a true change of direction, instead of merely a change of speed toward the economic cliff we are approaching.

Americans realize that their own financial situation is perilous.  The nation as a whole is deeply in debt, having mortgaged the future of our children and grandchildren.  When politicians talk about what they plan to do for future generations, they ought to begin by stating how they will remove the huge debt burden, not how they will find more ways to spend more money they don’t have.

In order to allow Americans to pay for their needs, whether for healthcare, education, or basics like food and gasoline, we need to change tax and monetary policies so the American people control more of their own money.  That money needs to stay in the economy, and out of the government money pit.

This means we must curb the voracious spending appetite of our federal government.  We need to rein in international commitments, especially the very expensive costs of maintaining a worldwide military presence, as a key first step to restructuring our budget and economy in a fashion that will allow Americans to provide for themselves.

We need to take a view of government that better reflects our own experience, as well as the wisdom of our nation’s founders.  There are very few constitutionally authorized federal powers, and returning daily government to this wisdom is real change.

Working toward a less intrusive, less expensive federal government focused on defending against overt actions of force and fraud, is the means to bringing about real change.  As we hear the repeated claims of those who wish to cast themselves as agents of change, we will do well to recall that more federal meddling is not a change in direction at all, but just “more of the same.”  We should be repealing programs, not proposing costly new bureaucracies.

Change, real change, the only kind of change that will quench the thirst of the American people for a new direction and provide us with the prosperity and security necessary to preserve our Republic as a beacon of liberty, requires bold initiatives designed to move our country away from economic peril by putting faith in free citizens instead of in Washington.

Making a Recession Great by Ron Paul

House Democrats recently adopted a budget with massive tax hikes, many of which are directed at those Americans who can least afford them.  By allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire in 2010, this budget will raise income taxes not only on those in the highest income brackets, but raises the lowest bracket from 10o 15s well.  Estates would again be taxed at 5526nbsp; The child tax credit would drop from $1000 to $500.  Senior citizens relying on investment income would be hurt by increases in dividend and capital gains taxes.  It's not just that the Democrats want to raise taxes on the rich.  They want to raise taxes on everybody.
The problem is, policing the world is expensive, and if elected officials insist upon continuing to fund our current foreign policy, the money has to come from somewhere.   The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have already cost us over $1 trillion.  The Democrats' budget gives the President all the funding he needs for his foreign policy, so one wonders how serious they ever were about ending the war.  While Democrats propose to tax and spend, many Republicans aim to borrow and spend, which hurts the taxpayer just as much in the long run.
Supporting a welfare state is expensive as well.  Over half of our budget goes to mandatory entitlements.  The total cost of government now eats up over half of our national income, as calculated by Americans for Tax Reform, and government is growing at an unprecedented rate.  Our current financial situation is completely untenable, and the worst part is, as government is becoming more and more voracious, the economy is shrinking.
The bottom line is that Washington has a serious spending addiction.  While both parties debate how to raise the revenue, both parties seem happy to spend over $3 trillion of your money in various ways. While some in Washington criticize the war in Iraq, very few are criticizing the interventionist mindset that got us into the war in the first place.  Many so-called "Iraq War critics," criticize this administration rather than truly opposing the decades old policies that led to war.  They claim they will eventually get the troops out of Iraq, but the danger is that they simply plan to move them around to other countries, not bring them home.  The American people want peace.  Minding our own business is the best way to achieve it.  Not only is it also a whole lot cheaper, but free trade and friendship with other countries benefits all involved. 
This spending spree is exactly the wrong policy for an economy on the brink of recession.  History has shown that all empires eventually crumble under a worthless currency and with an exhausted military.   Since too many of our nation's leaders haven't taken the time to learn from history, we are seeing mistakes repeated through recently enacted policies such as the new House budget.

Washington's Intervention Addiction by Ron Paul

 One problem with politicians is that when problems they create come to a head, they typically feel this irresistible urge to DO something, rather than to UN-do something, or to simply back off to avoid exacerbating the situation. Too often, that which they end up doing has very little connection to the cause of the crisis, but plays well in the press and superficially makes everyone feel better.  Bills that are rushed through Congress under duress are never studied enough, providing too tempting an opportunity to quietly slip in unrelated provisions that erode freedoms in ways that would never pass as a stand-alone bill.  We famously saw this with the PATRIOT Act, but Washington learned nothing from that.

The current housing crisis and the corresponding big government fix are another prime example.  First of all, the so-called solution will actually make the problem worse.  The problem stems from easy credit and a rush to flood the housing and mortgage markets with money. Relaxed or non-existent lending standards led many into mortgages and houses they could not afford.  As more foreclosures hit, the lending institutions will continue collapsing like dominoes under the weight of all the bad paper they underwrote.  Some are reacting and reintroducing lending standards.  Thus the number of buyers in the market for homes is beginning to shrink back to its natural size, and hyper-inflated prices are falling back down to earth.  In these ways, the market is trying to correct itself in the wake of the mistakes government intervention encouraged them to make through easy credit.  However, this correction is causing pain, especially to Wall Street investors and those who bought homes at the top of the market bubble, never expecting it to crash, always assuming they would easily be able to refinance.

Some mistakenly identify the falling home prices as the disease instead of merely a symptom – which they plan to fix with more easy credit and more liquidity to push more unqualified buyers back into the market for homes they still cannot afford.  This is akin to the drug addict identifying withdrawal symptoms as his problem and searching for another fix as his solution.  The cycle continues and the problems compound themselves.  The addiction deepens.

Addicts are told the first step to recovery is to admit their problem.  To cure this addiction to intervention we have to honestly admit the problem and once and for all, kick the habit.  That will involve some pain, without a doubt.  There is no easy, painless solution to the mess the disastrous economic interventions of the past have wrought.  The question is – do we allow some lending institutions to collapse, or do we allow the dollar to collapse?  To extend the metaphor, do we endure the temporary discomfort of withdrawal, or do we continue on until there is a fatal overdose?  We can delay the agony, but only for a little while, and then we will all end up paying the price for the mistakes of a few.

With the final passage of the Housing Bailout Bill quietly on a Saturday in the Senate, and the President’s signature, our government has unfortunately chosen the latter…

Second Amendment Battle in DC by Ron Paul
As a United States Congressman, I take my oath to uphold all of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights very seriously. Unfortunately, too many in Washington DC believe they can pick-and-choose which provisions of the constitution they can uphold. For example, many politicians, judges, and bureaucrats believe they have the power to disregard our right to own guns, even though the second amendment explicitly guarantees the people's right to "keep and bear arms."
Like the Founding Fathers, I believe that the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental to a free society.  Where law-abiding citizens are most freely allowed to defend themselves, communities are safer, while crime rises when law-abiding people's access to firearms is restricted. Gun laws only disarm those who respect the law.  Those with criminal tendencies do not turn in their weapons and reform their ways because government bureaucrats enact statutes that tell them to.  Gun control laws turn peaceful citizens into sitting ducks for criminals to prey upon.
Ironically, one of the most draconian gun laws in the nation is in the nation's capital. Banning guns did not make DC safer.  In fact crime in DC rose after the gun ban went into place!  Fortunately, last year, a federal court struck down DC's gun ban in the case of DC v. Heller.  This is the first time in years a court found a gun control law violated the second amendment. However, victory is not secured.  The city of DC has appealed and the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case. If the lower court's decision is upheld, law abiding citizens should once again be allowed to defend themselves in DC and I would expect it to become a much safer city.  It would also set a very positive precedent that could affect gun laws all over the country.
However, a Supreme Court decision that the District of Columbia 's gun laws are a "reasonable" infringement on constitutional rights could severely setback the gun rights movement.
This is why I have signed on to a brief headed by Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and signed by a majority of Congress asking the Supreme Court to uphold the lower court's decision and take a stand for stricter standards of constitutional review for gun laws. I am pleased to work with Senator Hutchison, and so many of my other colleagues, on this important issue. As a member of the Second Amendment Caucus, I will continue to work with those of my colleagues who support gun rights and grassroots activists to defend the Second Amendment Rights of Americans.

Matt Barber
Monday, August 25, 2008

How does one properly describe another who would – for purely selfish political reasons and with deliberation – intentionally refuse a thirsty child water or a hungry child food?

More specifically, what does one call a lawmaker who would condemn to death the child survivor of a botched abortion by permitting doctors to refuse that child, once born alive, potentially life-saving medical treatment and nutrition?

A number of things come to mind. Mr. President isn’t one of them.

Based on National Journal’s vote ratings – an objectively tallied assessment of congressional voting records – Barack Obama has properly earned the dubious distinction as the single most liberal Senator in Congress during his brief, albeit overstayed, tenure. But a cursory review of his words, deeds and associations reveals that this ivory-towered Harvard boy is no run-of-the-mill lefty. He’s an extremist among extremists.

Put aside for a moment some of the highly suspect (even criminal) characters within Obama’s circle of friends, such as the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers and Tony Resko. Forget the many anti-American sentiments to which prospective first lady Michelle Obama has given voice. And ignore, for now, the socialist, peacenik, MoveOn.org positions Obama holds on a host of fiscal, social and national security-related issues. Instead, for the sake of brevity, take a look at Obama’s demonstrably radical stance on just one issue: abortion.

Last year the U.S. Supreme Court upheld in Gonzales v. Carhart the federal ban on the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion. Congress overwhelmingly passed the ban in 2003. Even some of the most liberal members of Congress experienced unexplained fits of common sense, voting for the ban in the face of angry demands from mouth-foaming feminists.

Although the American Medical Association has determined that partial-birth abortion is never necessary under any circumstances, Obama threw a hissy, nonetheless, after the opinion came down. While deriding the Court for its ruling, he whined, “For the first time in Gonzales versus Carhart, the Supreme Court upheld a federal ban on abortions with criminal penalties for doctors.”

So what, exactly, did the ban ban? What “hard-won right” – as he later called partial-birth abortion – was Obama so steadfast to preserve?

During a partial-birth abortion, the abortionist pulls a fully developed, fully “viable” child – often kicking and thrashing – feet first from her mother’s womb, leaving only the top of her head in the birth canal. He then stabs her through the skull with scissors or some other sharp object, piercing her brain until her kicking and moving about suddenly and violently jerk to a halt. Her brains are then sucked out – collapsing her skull – and her now limp and lifeless body is tossed aside like so much garbage.

Again, medical science has determined that this horrific practice, which is nothing short of infanticide, is never necessary. But Barack Hussein Obama – the man who would be President – doesn’t see it that way. He called the partial-birth abortion ban, “a concerted effort to roll back the hard-won rights of American women.”

Although Obama’s love affair with partial-birth abortion has served to chip away at his finely polished veneer, his opposition to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA) has revealed to the world that backward extremism permeates his marrow.

BAIPA very simply requires that when a baby survives an attempted abortion – when she is “born alive” – further attempts to kill her must immediately cease, and steps must be taken to ensure her health and well-being.

Makes sense, right?

Not to Barack Obama. While serving in the Illinois state senate, he led the fight against a state version of Born Alive that was substantively identical to the federal BAIPA. In 2002, BAIPA passed the U.S. Senate with unanimous, bipartisan support; yet, Obama vehemently opposed its Illinois twin. This places him on the furthest fringe of pro-abortion extremes. The man’s devotion to the pro-abortion industry is so fixed that he would rather allow the murder of newborn babies than give an inch to the sanctity of human life.

When called on the carpet in 2004 for his complicity in facilitating infanticide, Obama began an extensive cover-up, accusing those who exposed the scandal of lying. But in recent days, based on documentary evidence unearthed by the National Right to Life Committee, the Obama campaign has been forced to admit that it was Obama, in fact, who had been lying all along. He not only led the charge to allow the continued practice of infanticide in Illinois, he carried the flag.

During his recent “not-ready-for-primetime” appearance at Pastor Rick Warren’s Saddleback forum, Obama was asked at what point “a baby gets human rights.” His answer was shocking: “Well, uh, you know, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or, uh, a scientific perspective, uh, answering that question with specificity, uh, you know, is, is, uh, above my pay grade,” said Obama.

What?! Above my pay grade? And this man wants to be the leader of the free world? Even the most ardent pro-abortion wactivist would have likely said that a baby gets human rights as soon as it’s born, right? But Obama couldn’t say that. His opposition to Born Alive proves he doesn’t believe it. And if he had said it, he’d have been called on it.

Well, I’m calling him on it anyway.

So, we now add a new word with a dual definition to our modern political lexicon: Obamacide. It means, 1) Killing the newborn survivor of a botched abortion through a deliberate act of omission; and, 2) That which a nation commits upon itself by electing one who would allow such a thing.

Lieberman calls Obama young, untested
By JULIET WILLIAMS, Associated Press Writer
Wed Sep 3, 6:49 AM ET

Sen. Joe Lieberman, the Democratic vice presidential pick eight years ago, on Tuesday criticized his former party's nominee as an untested candidate unwilling to challenge powerful interest groups as both Republican John McCain and one-time Democratic President Clinton have done.

Playing his former party's spoiler, the Democrat-turned-Independent called McCain — not Democratic nominee Barack Obama — the best choice to lead the country forward in his prime-time address to the Republican National Convention.

"Sen. Barack Obama is a gifted and eloquent young man who can do great things for our country in the years ahead," Lieberman said. "But my friends, eloquence is no substitute for a record — not in these tough times for America."

The Connecticut lawmaker, who sought the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004, argued that Obama has not reached across party lines to achieve anything of significance and has been unwilling to take on Democratic interest groups.

In a clear appeal for backers of Obama's former rival Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Lieberman said, "Let me contrast Barack Obama's record to that of the last Democratic president, Bill Clinton, who stood up to some of those same Democratic interest groups and worked with Republicans and got some important things done, like welfare reform, free trade agreements, and a balanced budget."

Lieberman said the comparison "may make history here at this Republican convention," but it drew only lukewarm response from the partisan crowd.

Lieberman addressed the second night of the Republican meeting just eight years after he stood before a cheering throng at the Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles and accepted the nomination as Al Gore's running mate.

He broke with his party over the war in Iraq and used his platform Tuesday to criticize Obama's national security record and hail McCain's. Lieberman, one of the strongest backers of the war, said that while Sen. Obama was voting to cut off funds for troops in Iraq, McCain took the unpopular position to support a surge in troops.

"Because of that, today, America's troops are coming home, thousands of them, and they're coming home in honor."

Seeking to reach beyond the GOP faithful gathered here, Lieberman said anyone who's ever contemplated voting Republican should do it this year.

"Tonight, I want to ask you, whether you are an independent, a Reagan Democrat, a Clinton Democrat, or just a plain old Democrat: This year, when you vote for president, vote for the person you believe is best for our country, not for the party you happen to belong to," Lieberman said.

Lieberman also sought the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004, but lost badly to John Kerry. Two years later, he lost a Democratic nomination for another term in Connecticut in 2006, then recovered quickly to win re-election as an independent.

His vote in the Senate gives the Democrats a narrow majority, but these days, he often calls himself an independent.

Former New Jersey Gov. Thomas Kean predicted Lieberman's speech would be the most interesting of the night, and shows tremendous courage.

"He's going to be punished by the Democratic Party and he knows it. But he wants to do it because he thinks he's the best candidate for president," Kean said.

Lieberman was also believed to be among those on McCain's vice presidential shortlist before the candidate selected Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin last week. Bedrock Republicans reacted strongly against the political moderate.

Lieberman's speech also echoed the McCain campaign story line about Palin: That she is a Washington outsider who courageously took on fellow Republicans in Alaska.

He painted McCain in a similar light, saying he's not "just another go-along partisan." Instead, he took on corrupt Republican lobbyists, big corporations and powerful colleagues in Congress.

"That's why I sincerely believe that the real ticket for change this year is the McCain-Palin ticket," he said to cheers.

Johnny's Got a New Girl
by Patrick J. Buchanan
Posted 09/03/2008 ET

The risk John McCain took last Friday is comparable to the 72-year-old ex-fighter pilot knocking back two shots and flying his F-16 under the Golden Gate Bridge.

McCain's choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his co-pilot was the biggest gamble in presidential history. As of now, it is paying off, big-time.

The sensational selection in Dayton, Ohio, stepped all over the big story from Denver -- Barack Obama's powerful address to 85,000 cheering folks in Mile High Stadium, and 35 million nationally, a speech that vaulted him from a 2-point deficit early in the week to an 8-point margin. Barack had never before reached 49 percent against McCain.

As the Democrats were being rudely stepped on, however, Palin ignited an explosion of enthusiasm among conservatives, Evangelicals, traditional Catholics, gun owners and Right to Lifers not seen in decades.

By passing over his friends Joe Lieberman and Tom Ridge, and picking Palin, McCain has given himself a fighting chance of winning the White House that, before Friday morning, seemed to be slipping away. Indeed, the bristling reaction on the left testifies to Democratic fears that the choice of Palin could indeed be a game-changer in 2008.

Liberals howl that Palin has no experience, no qualifications to be president of the United States. But the lady has more executive experience than McCain, Joe Biden and Obama put together.

None of them has ever started or run a business as Palin did. None of them has run a giant state like Alaska, which is larger than California and Texas put together. And though Alaska is not populous, Gov. Palin has as many constituents as Nancy Pelosi or Biden.

She has no foreign policy experience, we are told. And though Alaska's neighbors are Canada and Russia, the point is valid. But from the day she takes office, Palin will get daily briefings and sit on the National Security Council with the president and secretaries of state, treasury and defense.

She will be up to speed in her first year.

And her experience as governor of Alaska, dealing with the oil industry and pipeline agreements with Canada, certainly compares favorably with that of Barack Obama, a community organizer who dealt in the mommy issues of food stamps and rent subsidies.

Where Obama has poodled along with the Daley Machine, Palin routed the Republican establishment, challenging and ousting a sitting GOP governor before defeating a former Democratic governor to become the first female and youngest governor in state history.

For his boldness in choosing Palin, McCain deserves enormous credit. He has made an extraordinary gesture to conservatives and the party base, offering his old antagonists a partner's share in his presidency. And his decision is likely to be rewarded with a massive and enthusiastic turnout for the McCain-Palin ticket. Rarely has this writer encountered such an outburst of enthusiasm on the right.

In choosing Palin, McCain may also have changed the course of history as much as Ike did with his choice of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan did with his choice of George H.W. Bush. For should this ticket win, Palin will eclipse every other Republican as heir apparent to the presidency and will have her own power base among Lifers, Evangelicals, gun folks and conservatives -- wholly independent of President McCain.

A traditional conservative on social issues, Palin has become, overnight, the most priceless political asset the movement has. Look for the neocons to move with all deliberate speed to take her into their camp by pressing upon her advisers and staff, and steering her into the AEI-Weekly Standard-War Party orbit.

Indeed, if McCain defeats Barack, 2012 could see women on both national tickets, and given McCain's age and the possibility he intends to serve a single term, women at the top of both -- Sarah vs. Hillary.

The arrival of Palin on the national scene, with her youth, charisma and vitality, probably also portends a changing of the guard in Washington.

With Republicans having zero chance of capturing either House, and but a slim chance of avoiding losses in both, a Vice President Palin, with her reputation as a rebel and reformer, would surely inspire similar revolts in the Republican caucuses.

As Thomas Jefferson said, from time to time, a little rebellion in the political world is as necessary as storms in the physical.

The Palin nomination could backfire, but it is hard to see how. She has passed her first test, her introduction to the nation, with wit and grace. And the Obama-Biden ticket, having already alienated millions of women with the disrespecting of Hillary, is unlikely to start attacking another woman whose sole offense is that she had just been given the chance to break the glass ceiling at the national level.

Her nomination, which will bring the Republican right home, also frees up McCain to appeal to moderates and liberals, which has long been his stock in trade.

With his selection of Sarah Palin, John McCain has not only shaken up this election, he may have helped shape the future of the United States -- and much for the better.

The Four Stages of Conservative Female Abuse
Michelle Malkin
Wednesday, September 03, 2008


There's something about outspoken conservative women that drives the left mad. It's a peculiar pathology I've reported on for more than 15 years, both as a witness and a target. Thus, the onset of Palin Derangement Syndrome in the media, Democratic circles and the cesspools of the blogosphere came as no surprise. They just can't help themselves.

Liberals hold a special animus for constituencies they deem traitors. Minorities who identify as social and economic conservatives have left the plantation and sold out their people. Women who put an "R" by their name have abandoned their ovaries and betrayed their gender. As female Republican officeholders and female conservative public figures have grown in number and visibility, so has the progression of Conservative Female Abuse. The astonishing vitriol and virulent hatred directed at GOP Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is the most severe manifestation to date.

The first stage of Conservative Female Abuse by the left is infantilization. Right-wing women can't possibly believe what they say they believe about the sanctity of life, self-defense, free markets or foreign policy. They must be submissive little dolls of the White Male Hierarchy. Or, as a far-left (Is there any other kind of left in San Francisco?) San Francisco Chronicle columnist wrote of first lady Laura Bush, they must be put in their place as "docile doormats" with no brains of their own. True to form, no sooner had John McCain announced Gov. Palin as his veep pick than jeers of "Palin = neocon puppet" sprouted across the Internet.

The second stage of CFA is sexualization. A conservative woman is not merely a sellout. She is an intellectual prostitute. Unable or unwilling to argue with them on the merits, detractors resort to mocking the physical appearance of their ideological opponents in skirts and denigrating them with vulgar epithets. MSNBC hosts insulted former GOP presidential candidate Fred Thompson's accomplished wife and mother of two, Jeri Thompson, as working the stripper pole. Newspaper cartoonists Ted Rall, Pat Oliphant and Jeff Danziger have caricatured Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, including as a mammy, thick-lipped parrot and a Bush "House nigga" armed with "hair straightener." New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd derided former Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, a Republican, for applying "her makeup with a trowel."

True to form, Dowd was first out of the box to snicker at Gov. Palin's beauty pageant past, ridicule her "beehive and sexy shoes" and compare her path to the vice-presidential nomination as a "hokey chick flick." Joe Biden backhandedly praised her as "good looking." And left-wing bloggers worked overtime on lurid Photoshops of Palin as a bikini model and porn star. At the Democratic Underground, a highly trafficked liberal website raising money for Barack Obama, members held a contest to come up with nicknames and posters to slime GOP Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin -- and then to "spread [them] all over the 'Net." Among the nicer entries: "Cruella," "Gidget," "Governor Jesus Camp," "VPILF," "Fertilla the Huntress," "Iditabroad" and "KILLER PYSCHO FUNDIE B***H FROM HELL!!"

The third stage of CFA is demonization. When the left tires of hurling whore insults, it turns conservative women in the public eye into nefarious creatures. Bill Maher called Laura Bush "Hitler's dog." George Carlin attacked Barbara Bush as "the Silver douche bag." A Huffington Post website member wrote of Nancy Reagan: "Like her evil husband, she has lived far too long. Here's hoping the hag suffers for several weeks, then croaks in the tub." Another commenter added: "I feel no pity for the bitch who took delight in watching thousands die of a horrible disease and watching the poor having to eat out of dumpsters because of her husband's political beliefs."

True to form, rumors of Palin being a crypto-Nazi surfaced on the Internet and in the fringe media. And liberal critics used her gun-rights record to smear her as bloodthirsty.

The final stage of CFA is dehumanization. Conservative women aren't real women according to the liberal feminist establishment's definition. Remember when Gloria Steinem called Texas Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison a "female impersonator"? Or when curdled NOW leader Patricia Ireland instructed Democrats to vote only for "authentic" female political candidates? Or when Al Gore's fashion consultant Naomi Wolf described the foreign-policy analysis of Jeane Kirkpatrick as being "uninflected by the experiences of the female body"?

Echoing the bottom-feeders in the liberal blogosphere, mainstream journalists and Obama water-carriers now question Palin's commitment to motherhood and even challenge her prenatal care decisions in an effort to destroy her. Forget about questioning their patriotism. I question their sanity.

Foreign Policy "Experience"
Thomas Sowell
Wednesday, September 03, 2008


Now that the Democrats have recovered from the shock of Governor Sarah Palin's nomination as the Republican's candidate for vice president, they have suddenly discovered that her lack of experience in general-- and foreign policy experience in particular-- is a terrible danger in someone just a heartbeat away from being President of the United States.

For those who are satisfied with talking points, there is no need to go any further. But, for those who still consider substance relevant, this is an incredible argument coming from those whose presidential candidate has even less experience in public office than Sarah Palin, and none in foreign policy.

Moreover, if Senator Barack Obama is elected, he will not be a heartbeat away from the presidency, his would be the heartbeat of the president-- and he would be the one making foreign policy.

But the big talking point is that the Democrats' vice-presidential nominee, Senator Joe Biden, has years of foreign policy experience as a member, and now chairman, of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

That all depends on what the definition of "experience" is.

Before getting into that, however, a plain fact should be noted: No governor ever had foreign policy experience before becoming president-- not Ronald Reagan, not Franklin D. Roosevelt, nor any other governor.

It is hard to know how many people could possibly have had foreign policy experience before reaching the White House.

Thomas Jefferson had been Secretary of State, but that was a while ago, and there has not been any other Secretary of State to become President of the United States.

Nor has any Secretary of Defense. The first President Bush had been head of the C.I.A., which certainly gave him a lot of knowledge of what was happening around the world, though still not experience in making the country's foreign policy.

Senator Joe Biden's years of service on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is even further removed from foreign policy experience. He has had a front-row seat as an observer of foreign policy. But Senator Biden has never had any real experience of making foreign policy and taking the consequences of the results.

The difference between being a spectator and being a participant, with responsibility for the consequences of what you say and do, is fundamental.

You can read books about crime or attend lectures by criminologists, but you have no real experience or expertise about crime unless you have been a criminal or a policeman.

Although I served in the Marine Corps, I have no military experience in any meaningful sense. The closest I ever came to combat was being assigned to photograph the maneuvers of the Second Marine Division at Camp Lejeune, N.C.

That was photographic experience, not military experience. If someone gave me a policy-making job in the Pentagon, I wouldn't have a clue.

Senator Joe Biden has for years listened to all sorts of people testify on all sorts of foreign policy issues. But that tells us nothing about how well he understood the issues or how valid his conclusions were.

Whatever his conclusions were, they were not put to the test because he did not make any foreign policy.

Out of the four presidential and vice-presidential candidates this year, only Governor Palin has had to make executive decisions and live with the consequences.

As for Senator Obama, his various pronouncements on foreign policy have been as immature as they have been presumptuous.

He talked publicly about taking military action against Pakistan, one of our few Islamic allies and a nation with nuclear weapons.

Barack Obama's first response to the Russian invasion of Georgia was to urge "all sides" to negotiate a cease-fire and take their issues to the United Nations. That is standard liberal talk, which even Obama had second thoughts about, after Senator John McCain gave a more grown-up response.

We should all have second thoughts about what is, and is not, foreign policy "experience."

A Knock or a Boost?
Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, September 02, 2008


Since Governor Sarah Palin's daughter is not running for election this year, it is amazing how much the media has suddenly become obsessed with her. Her pregnancy not only made the front page of the New York Times, a printed announcement of her pregnancy stayed at the bottom of the television screen on CNN for what seemed to me to be about an hour or more.

Investigative reporters have obviously been burning a lot of midnight oil, digging deep into the history of Governor Palin's family, for they also found a drunk driving incident involving her husband decades ago-- before they were married.

"The public's right to know" is often invoked by the mainstream media, when what they are really talking about is the media's right to smear those that they disagree with politically.

It is doubtful whether the public is half as obsessed with Sarah Palin's daughter as CNN obviously is. Even before this particular story was hyped, CNN was among those in the media who had become something of a laughingstock for how they had gone overboard in favor of Barack Obama.

Increasingly, over the years, CNN has become less of a news reporting organization and more of a propaganda machine for liberal-left politics. Unfortunately, CNN is not alone.

It was not the newsworthiness of young Bristol Palin's pregnancy that put it on the front page of the New York Times or interminably on the bottom of the screen at CNN. It was an opportunity for them to try to damage the political career of someone they disagreed with politically.

But how much damage is this story likely to do? Only time will tell but it seems doubtful whether a lot of votes will be changed by it. The public does not always echo the media's obsessions.

Conservatives were apparently expected to be shocked but the media's perceptions of conservatives often bear no resemblance to reality. Rush Limbaugh, for example, remained supportive of Governor Palin-- and disgusted with the liberal scandal-mongers.

There is even a positive aspect to this. How many of us could have the history of our lives, and the lives of our whole families-- going back for decades-- picked over with a fine-tooth comb by investigative reporters, backed by the resources of a television network or a major newspaper, and have them come up with nothing worse than this?

There are people who are near and dear to me who have made some very bad mistakes in their lives. Would that disqualify me as a candidate for political office?

It certainly would not if I were running as a liberal Democrat. The media would say, "get over it" and "move on."

On the other hand, it could be the scandal of the century if I were running as a conservative Republican and some third cousin, twice removed, had gotten put behind bars or had died of a drug overdose.

At least one media attack has claimed to have some substance because Governor Palin has been critical of so-called "sex education" in the public schools. Her own daughter's pregnancy is supposed to demonstrate the need for such programs.

That is the vision of the left but what are the facts?

For decades, "sex education" has been sold as a way to reduce teenage pregnancy and venereal disease. But incessant repetition is not a rational argument, whether for "sex education" or for generic "change."

Before propaganda against traditional values regarding sex was introduced into the public school under the label of "sex education" in the 1960s, both teenage pregnancy and venereal disease had been going down for years.

In 1960 the rate of infection for syphilis, for example, was only half of what it had been in 1950.

But teenage pregnancy and venereal disease were pictured as the problems for which "sex education" was the solution. In reality, the long downward trend in both not only ended, but rose dramatically, after new attitudes toward sex were promoted in the schools under the guise of educating students.

"Sex education" is as phony as the scandal-mongering over a young woman who is no candidate for anything.

Message for McCain: The Only Way to Fight Corruption is to Cut Government
Michael Medved
Wednesday, September 03, 2008

The addition of Governor Sarah Palin to the Republican ticket gives John McCain the chance to reclaim his identity as a maverick and reformer, and to shape a winning message for the fall campaign.

The American people clearly want to see government cleaned up – with curbs on corrupt lobbyists, special interests, wasteful spending, and lavish favors for the rich and powerful. The Democrats are already trying to address this concern and naturally want to tar the GOP as the party of corruption and corporate power.

The Republicans need to respond with clarity and force to emphasize a single proposition: the only way to clean government up is to cut government down. No president can fight corruption without trimming spending and terminating bloated bureaucracies.

The Democrats propose vastly expanded federal programs in health care, education, the environment, energy and dozens of other areas. These programs, as even Barack Obama admits, will cost literally trillions of dollars. When the feds handle more money – more of the people’s money – it’s an obvious invitation for more corruption, more special favors, more targeted winners and losers depending on political influence.

If a swamp is breeding all sorts of insects and infections, you don’t improve the situation by diverting more water into the already fetid pool; the first thing you need to do is drain the swamp.

The Democrats seem to suggest that spending more will mean less waste --- a notion that every American with common sense can readily reject.

The challenge of battling special interests and corruption isn’t a separate issue from cutting federal spending and shrinking the government: they’re the same issue.

In his new book, “The Wrecking Crew” leftist commentator Thomas Frank makes the point that you’ll now find the wealthiest counties in the United States clustered in the D.C. area. That’s surprising, because Washington doesn’t really make anything – not a center of oil production like Houston, or software and aircraft like Seattle, or even movies and entertainment like Los Angeles. Frank rightly points out that the huge explosion of wealth in the nation’s capital relates to the tremendous increase in lobbying activity, with highly paid lawyers and influence peddlers trying to grab every available advantage from the federal behemoth.

But the right way to stop this corporate influence isn’t (as Frank suggests) simply to replace crooked Republicans with righteous, dedicated Democrats: it’s to tame the federal monster that drew the lobbyists in the first place, as government grew under Democrats and Republicans alike. As long as corporations find their success or failure subject to the whim of federal policy, of course they’ll make every effort to influence those policies – and no amount of lobbying regulation can end those efforts.

Consider the U.S. Department of Agriculture – with 106,000 employees and a yearly budget of $94 billion (2006 figures). This monstrous bureaucracy grows only one crop: regulation and favors, for one agri-business interest or another. Can anyone blame farming companies or organizations from attempting to secure favorable treatment from such an idiotically over-grown endeavor?

Then there’s the U.S. Department of Education (established by the worthless Jimmy Carter in 1979), with 5,000 employees and a budget of $69 billion --- an operation that doesn’t actually operate a single school (states and localities do that) but exists to send money to favored programs and regions. Is it any surprise that the education lobby (particularly the formidable teachers unions) has become one of the most fearsome forces in Washington?

The Department of Energy (another Carter era innovation) lists 16,100 federal employees and another 100,000 contract employees, with a budget of 23.4 billion – but never pumped a single barrel of oil.

In the thirty years that the Departments of Education and Energy have existed at the cabinet level, does anyone believe that the situation with either education or energy improved in the United States?

McCain shouldn’t call for the elimination of whole federal departments because the Democrats can too easily demagogue and say it shows he’s opposed to “education” and “energy.” But he can call attention to their lavishly wasteful existence, and the flood of money they’ve squandered over the years.

This is the essence of reform—taking on established bureaucracies, shaking things up in Washington, and cleaning out the most corrupt and ineffective programs by closing them down.

Emphasizing this approach also touches two other issues the Republicans should own: tax simplification and social security.

The tax code gets more complicated every year because special interests manage to wheedle no end of special breaks, complicated credits and exemptions. Barack Obama favors a whole array of new complications in the tax code—including at least a dozen new “refundable tax credits” that would go even to those who paid nothing in taxes (in which case they become welfare checks). Those Rube Goldberg contraptions establish and invite special treatment and big giveaways for those who know how to game the system. The only way to create a less corrupt tax system is to create a cleaner tax system— with more simplicity, more comprehensibility, fewer loopholes and lower rates.

The second issue (barely touched by Democrats in Denver) that highlights the need for reform is the survival of Social Security and Medicare. Saving these entitlements involves more than cleaning up the programs themselves: it requires huge cuts in government spending elsewhere, to pay back the massive amounts “borrowed” from the Social Security system over the years.

McCain and Palin need to make clear that the purpose of cutting spending isn’t just to avoid tax hikes. Most people who worry about (or pay) high taxes are already leaning Republican. Cutting back the undergrowth of useless federal programs is also the only way to drive out the lobbyists and special interests who occupy Washington like ravaging locusts. The public already understands that Democrats, as well as Republicans, make hay with this insider double-dealing: that’s why the approval rating for the Democratic Congress is even lower than it is for the President (and even lower than it was when the Republicans ran the House and Senate).

Both Democrats and Republicans claim they want to reform Washington and reduce levels of corruption. The GOP should challenge their opponents to go along with the only reliable way to strike back at favoritism and special interests and sweetheart deals for the powerful: cutting back on the size of the government and its share of the private sector economy.

Pat Buchanan's book, "Day of Reckoning":

America is coming apart at the seams.  Forces foreign and domestic seek an end to U.S. sovereignty and independence.  Before us looms the prospect of an America breaking up along the lines of race, ethnicity, class and culture.  In Day of Reckoning, Pat Buchanan reveals the true existential crisis of the nation and shows how President Bush’s post-9/11 conversion to an ideology of “democratism” led us to the precipice of strategic disaster abroad and savage division at home.

Ideology, writes Buchanan, is a Golden Calf, a false god, a secular religion that seeks vainly, like Marxism, to create a paradise on earth.

While free enterprise is good, the worship of a “free trade” that is destroying the dollar, de-industrializing America, and ending our economic independence, is cult madness.  While America must stand for freedom and self-determination, the use of U.S. troops to police the planet or serve as advance guard of some “world democratic revolution” is, as Iraq shows, imperial folly that will bring ruin to the republic. While America should speak out for human rights, the idea that we get in Russia’s face and hand out moral report cards to every nation on earth is moral arrogance.  While we have benefited from immigration and the melting pot worked with millions of Europeans, the idea we can import endless millions of aliens, legal and illegal, from every culture, clime, creed, and continent on earth, and still remain a country, is absurd.

To save America the first imperative is to remove from power the ideologues of both parties who have nearly killed our country.

In his final chapter, Buchanan lays out ideas to prevent the end of America.  He calls for a bottom-up review of all of America’s Cold War commitments, a ten-point program to secure America’s borders, ideas to halt the erosion of our national sovereignty and restore our manufacturing preeminence and economic independence, and a formula for finding the way to a cold peace in the culture wars.

Buchanan offers a radical but necessary program, for neither party is addressing the real crisis of America -- whether we survive as one nation and people, or disintegrate into what Theodore Roosevelt called a “tangle of squabbling nationalities” and not a nation at all.

- Pax Americana -- the era of U.S. global dominance -- is over.

- A struggle for world hegemony among the United States, China, a resurgent Russia and radical Islam has begun.

- Torn apart by a culture war, America has begun to Balkanize and break down along class, cultural, ethnic, and racial lines.

- Free trade is hollowing out U.S. industry, destroying the dollar, and plunging the country into permanent dependency and unpayable debt.

- One of every six U.S. manufacturing jobs vanished under Bush.

- The Third World invasion through Mexico is a graver threat to U.S. survival than anything happening in Afghanistan or Iraq. 


Pat Buchanan's latest book ("Day of Reckoning") cuts through the irrelevancy of today's politics and political correctness and clearly identifies the major threats to continuing our standard of living and world leadership. Mincing no words, he states that "America is coming apart . . . we are on a path to national suicide." Going on, he points out that we are being taken over by the greatest invasion in history (from Mexico) that is adding to the existing fragmentation of our culture and unity. European-Americans comprised 89% of the U.S. when JFK became President - now it is down to 66% and sinking further.

Buchanan sees our invasion from Mexico as a bigger threat than anything happening in Afghanistan and Iraq! Between 10 and 20 percent of all Mexicans, Central Americans and Caribbean people have already moved into the United States, about one in twelve here illegally has a criminal record (95% of the 1,200-1,500 warrants for homicide in L.A. target illegal aliens, and diseases once stamped out America such as drug-resistant TB, syphilis, and leprosy are surfacing in city after city.

Meanwhile, we act as though Social Security and Medicare are on sound footing, convince each other that free trade and the loss of millions of jobs through outsourcing to Asia is good, and ignore the hollowing out of American manufacturing that won WWII. As corporate CEOs rake in millions in pay and stock options, workers' pay stagnates and declines, and worker pensions and health care benefits also deteriorate. At the same time, the dollar sinks to new lows and may be abandoned by OPEC and Asian nations (creating financial chaos and high inflation in the U.S.), our enormous trade ($6 trillion; negative for 31 straight years) and federal ($9 trillion)deficits continue to rise - along with unfunded Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security liabilities ($59 trillion), our infrastructure deteriorates for lack of repair funds, and foreign nations buy up assets strategic to our national security. And if that isn't bad enough, Bush's speeches (eg. "Axis of Evil," "we'll not tolerate any challenge to our military might") and actions (eg. ending the ABM treaty with Russia, enlisting 6 former Warsaw Pact nations and 3 former Soviet republics into NATO - despite promises not to do so, planning ABMs in some of these Soviet-sphere nations) alienates Russia and many others.

While this "perfect storm" wrought by hubris and cult-thinking continues to weaken America, China and Russia are steadily becoming stronger. Fortunately, Buchanan is equally clear and on-target in his recommendations. Let's close most of our 1,000-some foreign bases and bring the troops home, stop meddling in other nations' affairs - eg. constantly telling Russia what to do and encouraging internal dissidents, secure our borders and culture (an effective double-line border fence, no-longer granting citizenship to the babies of illegals, crack down on employers continually hiring illegals, an Eisenhower-type deportation program beginning with all aliens convicted of felonies and every gang member who is not a citizen of the United States, mandate English as our official language, and a "timeout" on legal immigration), levy a 20% tax on imports and use the proceeds to lift taxes on our own manufacturers, and purge the neo-cons and "cake-walk" crowd from government. Finally, to help tamp down the culture wars Buchanan suggests a return to federalism and Congressionally mandated restrictions on the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

"Day of Reckoning" shows Buchanan as very knowledgeable and insightful. If only he were president! These problems would definitely be less pressing, and Americans would have a more positive sense of direction.

A Snapshot of Joe Biden's Foreign Policy Judgment
Lorie Byrd
Friday, August 29, 2008

Barack Obama’s choice of Joe Biden as running mate hasn’t helped him in the polls, and it has highlighted Obama’s lack of experience in matters of foreign policy and national security, but more than that it has given Republicans additional grounds to question Obama’s judgment.  At first glance the addition of the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a man with 35 years in the Senate, might seem the perfect balance to a ticket headed by a candidate with very little experience.  The fit might look perfect on paper, but the reality does not quite live up to the promise.  A look at Joe Biden’s recent foreign policy judgment says a lot more about a possible Obama presidency than the fact that Biden has been in the Senate for 3 ½  decades.

The Hill reported of Biden’s speech at the Democratic National Convention this week:  Biden “got confused about some very simple military terminology” stating that Obama advocated for “two additional battalions in Afghanistan” when “in fact, Obama called for two extra brigades – a small verbal slip, but a significant numerical one. A brigade is composed of a varying number of battalions.”  Although an embarrassing mistake for a man hailed for his national security knowledge, that slip of the tongue was probably just that, a verbal slip.  The same cannot be said for some of Biden’s past statements.

October 2001:  Shortly following the September 11 attacks, Michael Crowley reported of Biden in The New Republic:   “At the Tuesday-morning meeting with committee staffers, Biden launches into a stream-of-consciousness monologue about what his committee should be doing, before he finally admits the obvious: ‘I'm groping here.’  Then he hits on an idea: America needs to show the Arab world that we're not bent on its destruction. ‘Seems to me this would be a good time to send, no strings attached, a check for $200 million to Iran,’ Biden declares. He surveys the table with raised eyebrows, a How do ya like that? look on his face.” 

And more recently:

April 2007: Biden told reporters “"The surge is not succeeding, and the president refuses to see that."

July 2007:  Biden said he had been “shot at” in the Green Zone in Iraq, but later had to “revise” that claim . 

September 2007:  Just before Gen. David Petraeus was scheduled to report to Congress, Joe Biden said President Bush's war strategy is failing and that Petraeus, the top military commander in Iraq, is "dead flat wrong" for warning against major changes.  "The reality is that although there's been some mild security progress, there is in fact no security in Baghdad or Anbar province where I was dealing with the most serious problem, sectarian violence.”  Biden claimed that Bush’s purpose for the surge was to buy time long enough to push the burden of the war onto the next president.  Biden said, "I will insist on a firm beginning to withdraw the troops and I will insist on a target date to get American combat forces out.”

September 9, 2007:   From an interview with Tim Russert on Meet the Press:

MR. RUSSERT:  Let me show you what you said in Iowa last week.  “If we do not change course in Iraq soon, you’re going to see, two years from now, helicopters hovering over our embassy in the Green Zone in Baghdad with people hanging” onto “the ladders just like Vietnam.  Mark my words.”

SEN. BIDEN:  Absolutely, positively, unequivocally, I believe that.  Look, let me tell you, Tim, there is no possibility—no possibility—of a central government governing Iraq in any near term…

MR. RUSSERT:  General Petraeus said in a letter to his troops that we have not had the political reconciliation we thought we would have at this time. It’s been much slower, but there is some hope.  And then he added this:  “My sense is that we have achieved tactical momentum and wrested the initiative from our enemies in a number areas of Iraq.  We are, in short, a long way from the goal line, but we do have the ball and we are driving down the field.” Is that what you expect him to say tomorrow?

SEN. BIDEN:  I expect him to say that.  And I really respect him.  And I think he’s dead flat wrong.  The fact of the matter is that there is—that this idea of these security gains we’ve made have had no impact on the underlying sectarian dynamic.  None.  None whatsoever…  And can anybody envision a central government made up of Sunni, Shia and Kurds that’s going to gain the trust and respect of 27 million Iraqis?  It’s not going to happen.

MR. RUSSERT:  Your presidential campaign is on the air with a political ad about Iraq.  Let’s watch it for a second.


NARRATOR:  (From Biden political ad) In a world this dangerous, with a crisis as tough as Iraq, hard truths need to be told.  Joe Biden says this war must end now.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT:  This war must end now.  In, in ‘05, this is what Joe Biden was saying:  “We can call it quits and withdraw from Iraq.  I think that would be a gigantic mistake.  Or we can set a deadline for pulling out, which I fear will only encourage our enemies to wait us out—equally a mistake.” You’ve changed your mind.

SEN. BIDEN:  Well, I have changed my mind, but I haven’t changed my mind in any fundamental way…

September 26, 2007:  The Senate passed Biden’s amendment "calling for creation of a federal system of government in Iraq with regions divided along ethnic lines."

On the result of Biden’s statements and actions, Michael Rubin recently wrote:

“The November 2007 National Intelligence Estimate …found that Iran had pursued a nuclear weapons program until 2003. Although Biden's embrace of engagement coincided with Iran's nuclear warhead work, he acknowledged no error. He told reporters on Dec. 4 that Bush had "misrepresented" the intelligence in a drive to war and declared the same day, "You cannot trust this president."  Such poor judgment was not lost on Iranian leaders. Indeed, one of Khatami's top aides suggested that they came to count on it…Biden’s political games have made him Tehran’s favorite senator. As Gen. David Petraeus struggled to unite Iraqis across the ethnic and sectarian divide, Iran’s Press TV seized on Biden’s plan for partitioning Iraq and featured his statements with the headline “US plans to disintegrate Iraq.” Biden’s attack-dog statements about U.S. policy failures emboldened Iranian hard-liners to defy diplomacy. In the Dec. 7, 2007, official sermon, Ayatollah Mohammad Kashani speaking on behalf of Iran’s supreme leader, declared, “This Senator [Biden] correctly says Israel could not suppress Hizbullah in Lebanon, so how can the U.S. stand face-to-face with a nation of 70 million? This is the blessing of the Guardianship of the Jurists [the theocracy] . . . which plants such thoughts in the hearts of U.S. senators and forces them to make such confessions.” The crowd met his statement with refrains of “Death to America.”

In April 2008 Biden remained convinced the surge was a failure.  As an early rebuttal to upcoming testimony by Gen. David Petraeus Biden said, "The purpose of the surge was to bring violence in Iraq down so that its leaders could come together politically… Violence has come down, but the Iraqis have not come together." He later added, "There is little evidence the Iraqis will settle their differences peacefully any time soon." 

By July 2008,  Iraq had “met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.”  According to a report this week, “The U.S. military will hand over responsibility for the security of Anbar Province, once a stronghold of the Sunni insurgency and one of the most violent regions in Iraq, to the Iraqi government as early as Monday, Iraqi and U.S. officials said.”

Many have recently pointed to comments Biden made about Barack Obama in August of 2007:  "I think he can be ready, but right now I don't believe he is. It's awful hard, with only a little bit of experience to have a clear sense of what you would do on the most critical issues facing us today."   That is very true, but Obama’s choice of Biden to be his foreign policy expert gives us a good idea of how an Obama-Biden administration would handle such matters if elected.

Joe Biden's Mythical Blue-Collar Roots
Steve Chapman
Sunday, August 31, 2008

Joe Biden once got in trouble for plagiarizing a speech and inflating his academic record. So it will not surprise you to find that his famous working-class background turns out to be mythical. But it may surprise you to learn that Biden isn't the one who has trouble with the facts.

In his Wednesday night speech at the Democratic convention, Biden referred to "those of us who grew up in middle-class neighborhoods like Scranton and Wilmington." In the video preceding his address, he said that the people he knew as a boy didn't regard themselves as working class but as middle class.

So what did the news media report? "Sen. Joseph R. Biden accepted the vice presidential nomination of the Democratic Party with a speech that harkened back to his working-class roots in Scranton," said The Washington Post. The Wall Street Journal informed readers that "Sen. Joe Biden showcased his working-class upbringing." The New York Times said he "spoke frequently, and earnestly, of his blue-collar background."

No, he didn't. In fact, he did just the opposite. Anyone paying attention would have noticed as much. But the legend of Joe Biden, born in a welding shop, dies hard with political reporters, who find it easier to romanticize a gritty, hardscrabble childhood than a conventionally comfortable one.

The facts are there for anyone who wants to look at them. When Joe Biden Sr. died in 2002, his obituary in the News-Journal of Wilmington reported that when he married in 1941, "he was working as a sales representative for Amoco Oil Co. in Harrisburg."

It went on, "Biden also was an executive in a Boston-based company that supplied waterproof sealant for U.S. merchant marine ships built during World War II. After the war, he co-owned an airport and crop-dusting service on Long Island." Upon moving his family to Delaware, the News-Journal said, Biden "worked in the state first as a sales manager for auto dealerships and later in real-estate condominium sales."

Executive, co-owner and manager? Those titles identify the jobholder as solidly middle class, if not better. They fall in the category of white-collar occupations, not blue-collar.

And Biden Sr. clearly knew the difference. In his book, "Promises to Keep," Biden writes that his father was "the most elegantly dressed, perfectly manicured, perfectly tailored car sales manager Wilmington, Del., had ever seen."

Biden notes that he himself could have gone to the best public high school in Delaware. Instead, he enrolled at Archmere Academy, a Catholic prep school that made him think he had "died and gone to Yale." He took a summer job to help pay the steep tuition, which today amounts to $18,450 a year.

That doesn't mean the Bidens never had financial trouble. Biden says they had to move in with his mother's parents after one setback, and he remembers "when the electric company would send a collector to the house."

For nearly a year, the father was reduced to cleaning boilers for a heating company. But middle-class people are not immune to unemployment and bad business deals, and the Bidens regained their footing before long.

So where did he get his working-class reputation? Partly it comes from Biden's streetwise demeanor and his preoccupation with the fact that his family wasn't as well-off as some of the people he knew -- which seems to have given him a permanent chip on his shoulder. Partly it comes from his frequent tributes to blue-collar folks, such as the firefighters who took him to the hospital when he suffered an aneurysm.

But mostly it reflects journalists' weakness for simple, vivid narratives. It's easy to write about a statesman who worked his way up from a log cabin. It's easy to write about a leader who came from great wealth. But someone growing up the son of a sales manager is a bit lacking in color and drama.

The errors about Biden bring to mind the recent satirical report from humorist Andy Borowitz: "A member of the U.S. Olympic diving team was disqualified from competition today when it was learned that he did not have a sufficiently compelling human story line to exploit on the NBC telecast of the worldwide sporting event."

Biden just didn't have a sufficiently compelling human story line for a presidential campaign. Luckily, he does now.

Biden: Israeli Report on Iran 'A Lie'
Tuesday, September 2, 2008 10:46 AM
By: Jim Meyers

Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Biden is denying a report that he secretly told Israeli officials they would have to accept the idea that Iran will acquire nuclear weapons.

Israeli Army Radio said on Monday that the senator from Delaware, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, met with “senior Israeli officials” behind closed doors during a visit several years ago and told them: “Israel with have to reconcile itself with the nuclearization of Iran.”

Biden reportedly told the officials he opposed “opening an additional military and diplomatic front” against Iran.

But Biden spokesman David Wade declared in comments reported by ABC News: “This is a lie peddled by partisan opponents of Senators Obama and Biden, and we will not tolerate anyone questioning Senator Biden’s 35-year record of standing up for the security of Israel.

“Joe Biden’s first trip as a Senator was to Israel, he has worked with every Israeli leader from Golda Meir to Prime Minister Olmert, and he takes a back seat to no one when it comes to protecting the relationship between Israel and the U.S.

"Senator Biden has consistently stated – publicly and privately — that a nuclear Iran would pose a grave threat to Israel and the United States and that we must prevent a nuclear Iran.”

As Newsmax reported on Monday, Biden has been an ardent supporter of the state of Israel in the Senate. His selection as Barack Obama’s running mate was seen as an effort to shore up support with the U.S. Jewish community.

During the primaries Obama argued for direct negotiations with Iran, and he has avoided making any suggestion that the U.S. should take military action against Iran.

Why Obama's "Community Organizer" Days Are a Joke
Michelle Malkin
Friday, September 05, 2008

Rudy Giuliani had me in stitches during his red-meat keynote address at the GOP convention. I laughed out loud when Giuliani laughed out loud while noting Barack Obama's deep experience as a "community organizer." I laughed again when VP nominee and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin cracked: "I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a 'community organizer,' except that you have actual responsibilities."

Team Obama was not amused. (Neither were the snarky left-wingers on cable TV who are now allergic to sarcasm.) They don't get why we snicker when Obama dons his Community Organizer cape. Apparently, the jibes rendered Obama's advisers sleepless. In a crack-of-dawn e-mail to Obama's followers hours after Giuliani and Palin spoke, campaign manager David Plouffe attempted to gin up faux outrage (and, more importantly, donations) by claiming grave offense on the part of community organizers everywhere. Fumed Plouffe:

"Both Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin specifically mocked Barack's experience as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago more than two decades ago, where he worked with people who had lost jobs and been left behind when the local steel plants closed. Let's clarify something for them right now. Community organizing is how ordinary people respond to out-of-touch politicians and their failed policies."

Let me clarify something. Nobody is mocking community organizers in church basements and community centers across the country working to improve their neighbors' lives. What deserves ridicule is the notion that Obama's brief stint as a South Side rabble-rouser for tax-subsidized, partisan nonprofits qualifies as executive experience you can believe in.

What deserves derision is "community organizing" that relies on a community of homeless people and ex-cons to organize for the purpose of registering dead people to vote, shaking down corporations and using the race card as a bludgeon.

As I've reported previously, Obama's community organizing days involved training grievance-mongers from the far-left ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). The ACORN mob is infamous for its bully tactics (which they dub "direct actions"); Obama supporters have recounted his role in organizing an ambush on a government planning meeting about a landfill project opposed by Chicago's minority lobbies.

With benefactors like Obama in office, ACORN has milked nearly four decades of government subsidies to prop up chapters that promote the welfare state and undermine the free market, as well as some that have been implicated in perpetuating illegal immigration and voter fraud. Since I last detailed ACORN's illicit activities in this column in June (see "The ACORN Obama knows," June 19, 2008), the group continues to garner scrutiny from law enforcement:

Last week, Milwaukee's top election official announced plans to seek criminal investigations of 37 ACORN employees accused of offering gifts to sign up voters (including prepaid gas cards and restaurant cards) or falsifying driver's license numbers, Social Security numbers or other information on voter registration cards.

Last month, a New Mexico TV station reported on the child rapists, drug offenders and forgery convicts on ACORN's payroll. In July, Pennsylvania investigators asked the public for help in locating a fugitive named Luis R. Torres-Serrano, who is accused "of submitting more than 100 fraudulent voter registration forms he collected on behalf of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now to county election officials." Also in July, a massive, nearly $1 million embezzlement scheme by top ACORN officials was exposed.

ACORN's political arm endorsed Obama in February and has ramped up efforts to register voters across the country. In the meantime, completely ignored by the mainstream commentariat and clean-election crusaders, the Obama campaign admitted failing to report $800,000 in campaign payments to ACORN. They were disguised as payments to a front group called "Citizen Services, Inc." for "advance work."

Jim Terry, an official from the Consumer Rights League, a watchdog group that monitors ACORN, noted: "ACORN has a long and sordid history of employing convoluted Enron-style accounting to illegally use taxpayer funds for their own political gain. Now it looks like ACORN is using the same type of convoluted accounting scheme for Obama's political gain." With a wave of his magic wand, Obama amended his FEC forms to change the "advance work" to "get-out-the-vote" work.

Now, don't you dare challenge his commitment to following tax and election laws. And don't you even think of entertaining the possibility that The One exploited a nonprofit supposedly focused on helping low-income people for political gain.

He was just "organizing" his "community." Guffaw.

Obama Had Close Ties to Top Saudi Adviser at Early Age
Wednesday, September 3, 2008 5:58 PM
By: Kenneth R. Timmerman

New evidence has emerged that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was closely associated as early as age 25 to a key adviser to a Saudi billionaire who had mentored the founding members of the Black Panthers.

In a videotaped interview this year on New York’s all news cable channel NY1, a prominent African-American businessman and political figure made the curious disclosures about Obama. (See Video Clip Below)

Percy Sutton, the former borough president of Manhattan, off-handedly revealed the unusual circumstances about his first encounter with the young Obama.

“I was introduced to (Obama) by a friend who was raising money for him,” Sutton told NY1 city hall reporter Dominic Carter.

“The friend’s name is Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, from Texas,” Sutton said. “He is the principal adviser to one of the world’s richest men. He told me about Obama.”

[Editor's Note: Read the Newsmax Article “Who Is Khalid al-Mansour?” Go Here Now].

Sutton, the founder of Inner City Broadcasting, said al-Mansour contacted him to ask a favor: Would Sutton write a letter in support of Obama’s application to Harvard Law School?

“He wrote to me about him,” Sutton recalled. “And his introduction was there is a young man that has applied to Harvard. I know that you have a few friends up there because you used to go up there to speak. Would you please write a letter in support of him?”

Sutton said he acted on his friend al-Mansour’s advice.

“I wrote a letter of support of him to my friends at Harvard, saying to them I thought there was a genius that was going to be available and I certainly hoped they would treat him kindly,” Sutton told NY1.

Sutton did not say why al-Mansour was helping Obama, how he discovered him, or from whom he was raising money on Obama’s behalf.

A Sutton aide told Newsmax that Sutton, 88, is ailing and is unlikely to do additional TV interviews in the near future. The aide could not provide additional comment for this story.

As it turned out, Obama did attend Harvard Law School after graduating from Columbia University in New York and doing a stint as a community organizer in Chicago.

The New York Times described how transformative his Harvard experience became for the young Obama: “He arrived there as an unknown, Afro-wearing community organizer who had spent years searching for his identity; by the time he left, he had his first national news media exposure, a book contract and a shot of confidence from running the most powerful legal journal in the country.”

The details of Obama’s academic performance are well known: At Harvard, Obama rose to academic distinction becoming the editor of the Harvard Law Review and graduating magna cum laude.

Less known are the reasons al-Mansour, an activist African-American Muslim, would be a key backer for a young man from Hawaii seeking to attend the most Ivy of the Ivy League law schools.

Khalid al-Mansour a.k.a. Don Warden

In an exclusive interview with Newsmax from his home in San Antonio, Texas, al-Mansour said he would not comment specifically on the statement by Percy Sutton because he was afraid anything he said would get “distorted.”

“I was determined I was never going to be in that situation,” he said. “Bloggers are saying this is the new Rev. Wright — in drag! — and he is a nationalist, racist, and worse than Rev. Wright. So any statement that I made would only further this activity which is not in the interest of Barack.”

But in the lengthy interview, al-Mansour confirmed that he frequently spoke on university campuses, including Columbia, where Percy Sutton suggested he met Obama in the late 1980s, and confirmed his close relationship with Prince Alwaleed.

“I am not surprised to learn about this,” said Niger Innis, spokesman of the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE). “It is clear that Barack Obama’s ties to the left are familial, generational, and have lasted for several years.” Innis is scheduled to address the Republican Convention in St. Paul, Minn at 7:43 PM Eastern time on Thursday.

Although many Americans have never heard of Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour (his full name), he is well known within the black community as a lawyer, an orthodox Muslim, a black nationalist, an author, an international deal-maker, an educator, and an outspoken enemy of Israel.

A graduate of Howard University with a law degree from the University of California, al-Mansour sits on numerous corporate boards, including the Saudi African Bank and Chicago-based LaGray Chemical Co. LaGray, which was formed to do business in Africa, counts former Nigerian President General Abdusalam Abubakar on its advisory board.

He also sits on the board of the non-profit African Leadership Academy, along with top McCain for President adviser Carly Fiorina, and organized a tribute to the President of Ghana at the Clinton White House in 1995, along with pop star Michael Jackson.

But his writings and books are packed with anti-American rhetoric reminiscent of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s disgraced former pastor.

In a 1995 book, “The Lost Books of Africa Rediscovered,” he alleged that the United States was plotting genocide against black Americans.

The first "genocide against the black man began 300 years ago," he told an audience in Harlem at a book-signing, while a second "genocide" was on the way “to remove 15 million Black people, considered disposable, of no relevance, value or benefit to the American society.”

In the 1960s, when he founded the African American Association in the San Francisco Bay area, he was known as Donald Warden.

According to the Social Activism Project at the University of California at Berkley, Warden, a.k.a. Khalid al-Mansour, was the mentor of Black Panther Party founder Huey Newton and his cohort, Bobby Seale.

Newton later had a falling out with Warden, who was described in a 1994 book as “the most articulate spokesperson for black nationalism” at the time.

The falling out wasn’t purely political, according to author Hugh Pearson.

“Sometimes Newton and the other members of (Warden’s) security detail got into fights with young whites who didn’t like what Warden had to say about whites. Rather than ‘throw down’ along with the security detail, Warden refused to fight,” Pearson wrote in “Shadow of the Panther: Huey Newton and the Price of Black Power in America.”

U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee of California entered an official statement of appreciation of Warden and his Black Panther colleagues in the African-American Association in the Congressional Record on April 23, 2007.

“Among the founding members (of the Association) were community leaders such as Khalid Al-Mansour (known then as Don Warden); future Judges Henry Ramsey and Thelton Henderson; future Congressman and Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums, and future Black Panthers Huey Newton and Bobby Seale,” the Democratic representative’s statement said.

Al-Mansour’s more recent videotaped speeches focus on Muslim themes, and abound with anti-Semitic theories and anti-Israel vitriol.

“Today, the Palestinians are being brutalized like savages,” he told an audience in South Africa. “If you protest you will go to jail, and you may be killed. And they say they are the only democratic country in the Middle East. ... They are lying on God.”

He accused the Jews of “stealing the land the same way the Christians stole the land from the Indians in America.”

The Saudi Connection

But al-Mansour’s sponsorship of Obama as a prospective Harvard law student is important for another reason beyond his Islamic and anti-American rhetoric and early Black Panther ties.

At the time Percy Sutton, a former lawyer for Malcolm X and a former business partner of al-Mansour, says he was raising money for Obama’s graduate school education, al-Mansour was representing top members of the Saudi Royal family seeking to do business and exert influence in the United States.

In 1989, for example — just one year after Obama entered Harvard Law School — The Los Angeles Times revealed that al-Mansour had been advising Saudi billionaires Abdul Aziz and Khalid al-Ibrahim in their secret effort to acquire a major stake in prime oceanfront property in Marina del Rey, Calif., through “an elaborate network of corporate shells in California, the Caribbean and Europe.”

At the same time, he was also advising Prince Alwaleed bin Talal in his U.S. investments, and sits on the board of his premier investment vehicle, Kingdom Holdings.

Prince Alwaleed, 53, is the nephew if King Abdallah of Saudi Arabia. Forbes magazine ranked him this year as the 19th richest person on the planet, with a fortune in excess of $23 billion. He owns large chunks of Citigroup and News Corp., the holding company that controls Fox News.

He is best known in the United States for his offer to donate $10 million to help rebuild downtown Manhattan after the 9/11 attacks. But after the prince made a public comment suggesting that U.S. policies had contributed to causing the attacks, Mayor Rudy Giuliani handed back his check.

"I entirely reject that statement," Giuliani said. "There is no moral equivalent for this (terrorist) act. There is no justification for it. The people who did it lost any right to ask for justification for it when they slaughtered 4,000 or 5,000 innocent people.”

Since then, Prince Alwaleed’s Kingdom Foundation has given millions of dollars to Muslim charities in the United States, including several whose leaders have been indicted on terrorism-related charges in federal courts.

He also has given tens of millions of dollars to Harvard and other major U.S. universities, to establish programs in Islamic studies.

The casual statement by Percy Sutton to NY1 is the first time anyone has hinted at a relationship between Obama and the Saudi royal family.

Although al-Mansour glosses over his ties to the Saudi mega-billionaire in some of his public talks, he has represented the Saudi’s interests in the United States, in Britain, and in Africa for more than a quarter century, according to public records.

He told Newsmax that he has personally introduced Prince Alwaleed to “51 of the 53 leaders of Africa,” traveling from country to country on the Saudi prince’s private jet.

He knows virtually every black leader in America, from the business community, to community activists, to the worlds of politics and entertainment.

When Michael Jackson was on the ropes in the mid-1990s following a series of lawsuits by the parents of children accusing him of sexual abuse, al-Mansour introduced him to Prince Alwaleed, whose Kingdom Entertainment signed a joint venture with Jackson in 1996.

“Jackson and Alwaleed became pals in 1994, when a mutual friend from Alwaleed's college days in California arranged a lunch meeting aboard the prince's yacht in Cannes,” Time magazine reported about the new partnership in 1997.

The mutual friend was al-Mansour.

“As a black American, I am exceedingly proud at the American people’s response to Barack Obama’s candidacy,” said CORE’s Niger Innis. “But to deny that he has long-standing ties to left-wing elements in our polity is to deny reality. If you want to be president of the United States, it is not racism if you ask these kind of questions, and he has to come up with an answer, hopefully the truth.”

Sutton gives no clues as to why al-Mansour would be raising money to help Obama go to law school. Obama has said during his campaign that he paid his way through Harvard with student loans.

For Jesse Lee Peterson, founder of the Los Angeles-based Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny (BOND), these latest revelations about Obama’s ties to Saudi financiers were an important wake-up call.

“To me, this opened up more questions about Barack Obama and his relationship to the Muslim world,” Peterson told Newsmax.

“A lot of people are caught up with the emotional aspect of Barack Obama, the movie star aspect, the false promises that he’s going to take care of everyone and their Mama.”

But when the full story of Obama’s ties to radical preachers such as Wright and to black Muslim leader Louis Farrakhan comes out, Peterson believes that Obama’s star power will fade.

“I think there’s more to this story and to Barack Obama than we realize,” Peterson said. “As all the truth comes out before the election, I don’t think he has a chance. I can’t see American’s taking that kind of risk.”

The Obama campaign did not respond to requests for comment.

Percy Sutton Reveals Association Between Khalid al-Mansour and Obama at Age 25 (movie at bottom of page): http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/obama_sutton_saudi/2008/09/03/127490.html

Obama’s Muslim Past Dogs Campaign
Sunday, September 7, 2008 7:18 PM
By: Bradley Owens

Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama has launched a tirade against John McCain, claiming he and his campaign are behind reports tying him to the Muslim faith.

Obama, was born to the Muslim faith and raised as a Muslim in his early youth, though he did not actively practice his religion.

Obama began his broadside last Friday at a campaign stop in Scranton, Pa.

"When they say this isn't about issues, it's about personalities, what they're really saying is, 'We're going to try to scare people about Barack. So we're going to say that, you know, maybe he's got Muslim connections, or we're going to say that, you know, he hangs out with radicals, or he's not patriotic,'" Obama told his audience.

McCain’s campaign chairman quickly responded to Obama, calling his comment "a cynical attempt to play the victim."

On Sunday, Obama again tried to connect McCain to questions being raised about his faith.

"These guys love to throw rocks and hide their hand," Obama said on ABC's "This Week."

He then claimed McCain's campaign is working behind the scenes, saying the Islamic talk is "being promulgated on Fox News ... and Republican commentators who are closely allied to these folks."

"What I think is fair to say is that coming out of the Republican camp there have been efforts to suggest that perhaps I'm not who I say I am when it comes to my faith," Obama said, which he described as "my Muslim faith" in apparent verbal gaffe.

Obama's campaign clearly is concerned about the persistent discussion of matters involving him and Islam, and it even has paid search ads on Google when words like "Obama Muslim" are plugged in. One Obama search ad is headlined "Barack Obama Muslim Myth" with the following statement: "Barack Obama is a Christian. Get the facts at his official site. BarackObama.com."

Obama's media offensive over the Muslim issue suggests he wants any discussion of his religious past taken off the table as the campaign enters its most heated period after the convention.

Obama's Ties to Islam

Obama's ties to Islam are hereditary. His father was a Muslim, though Obama claims he was nonpracticing. According to Islamic law, Obama was born a Muslim, as religion is passed paternally. (Judaism, for example, passes religious identification maternally.)

Apparently in deference to his father, his full name, Barack Hussein Obama, is an Arabic name. The name Barack is a derivation of "Barak" -- the horse that took the prophet Muhammad on his flight into heaven.

Though Obama’s biological father disappeared from his son’s life soon after he was born and returned to his native Kenya, he was raised by his Kansas-born mother and her second husband, an Indonesian who was also a Muslim.

Obama has described his mother as a Christian, but Newsweek recently noted she had eschewed her parents’ faith in favor of secular humanism.

Obama’s mother and her Indonesian husband moved with young Barack from Hawaii to Jakarta, Indonesia’s capital, in 1967. Obama lived there from ages 6 to 10.

Reports dating back as far as early 2007 held that Obama was educated at a radical Islamic school in Indonesia. Such reports are false. He never attended such a school.

In fact, Obama first attended a Catholic school for almost three years. However, his mother registered him in the school as a Muslim. As such, he was required to spending time each week praying with Muslim students and studying the Koran.

In the wake of the controversy over Obama's Muslim upbringing, The Los Angeles Times sent a reporter to Jakarta to ferret out the truth.

The Times report, published on March 16, 2008, revealed:

A close boyhood friend of Obama, Zulfin Adi, said Obama "was a Muslim. He went to the mosque."

Obama's first-grade teacher at a Catholic school, Israella Dharmawan, said: "Barry (Barack's nickname) was Muslim. He was registered as a Muslim because his father was Muslim."

In the third grade, Obama transferred to a public school, where he was also registered as a Muslim. At the school, Muslim students attended weekly religion lessons about Islam.

Some of these details have been confirmed by Obama himself. In his autobiography, "Dreams From My Father," Obama mentions studying the Koran and describes the public school as "a Muslim school."

His campaign Web site hosts a page titled "Fight the Smears" -- which is dedicated to fighting what his campaign says are false claims about Obama and Islam.

The web page states categorically: "Senator Obama has never been a Muslim, was not raised as a Muslim, and is a committed Christian."

But the facts suggest that his campaign's statements are not exactly true.

Middle East Forum director Daniel Pipes wrote on FrontPageMag.com that his research led him to conclude that "Obama was born a Muslim to a nonpracticing Muslim father and for some years had a reasonably Muslim upbringing under the auspices of his Indonesian stepfather."

After The Los Angeles Times conducted its own investigation, Gibbs amended his previous statement on behalf of Obama, telling the Times: "Obama has never been a practicing Muslim," the key word being "practicing."

The Times and other outlets that have reviewed the facts relating to Obama's upbringing as a Muslim have come under withering criticism from Obama and groups that support him.

But Pipes insists the facts are indisputable, with several pro-Obama sources confirming his ties to Islam though downplaying the intensity of his faith.

“The campaign appears to be either ignorant or fabricating when it states that ‘Obama never prayed in a mosque,’" Pipes argues.

"In sum: Obama was an irregularly practicing Muslim who rarely or occasionally prayed with his stepfather in a mosque," Pipes writes on his blog DanielPipes.org. "This precisely substantiates my statement that he 'for some years had a reasonably Muslim upbringing under the auspices of his Indonesian stepfather.'"

Indisputable also is the fact that Obama says in the early 1990s he converted to Christianity after attending services at Chicago’s Trinity United Church, whose pastor was the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr.

Obama’s campaign is clearly worried that his ties to Islam could become a major problem for swing voters.

A Newsweek poll taken in mid-July found that 26 percent of American believe he was raised a Muslim.

A survey by Fox News/Opinion Dynamics conducted when Mitt Romney, a Mormon, was a Republican presidential candidate found that 32 percent of voters said they would be less likely to vote for a presidential candidate who is Mormon -- while 45 percent said they would be less likely to vote for a Muslim.

And a poll by the Pew Research Center disclosed that 35 percent of Americans have an unfavorable view of Muslims.

 1.) Selma Got Me Born - NOT EXACTLY, your parents felt safe enough to have you in 1961 - Selma had no effect on your birth, as Selma was in 1965.
( <http://www.google.com/> Google ' Obama Selma ' for his full March 4, 2007 speech and articles about its various untruths.)

2.) Father Was A Goat Herder - NOT EXACTLY, he was a privileged, well educated youth who went on to work with the Kenyan Government.
3.) Father Was A Proud Freedom Fighter

 - NOT EXACTLY, he was part of one of the most corrupt and violent governments Kenya has ever had.

4.) My Family Has Strong Ties To African Freedom - NOT EXACTLY, your cousin Raila Odinga has created mass violence in attempting to overturn a legitimate election in 2007, in Kenya . It is the first widespread violence in decades. The current government is pro-American but Odinga wants to overthrow it and establish Muslim Sharia law.
Your half-brother, Abongo Obama, is Odinga's follower. You interrupted your New Hampshire campaigning to speak to Odinga on the phone.
Obama's cousin Odinga in Kenya ran for president and tried to get Sharia Muslim law in place there. When Odinga lost the elections, his followers have burned Christians' homes and then burned men, women and children alive in a Christian church where they took shelter.

Obama SUPPORTED his cousin before the election process here started. Google Obama and Odinga and see what you get. No one wants to know the truth.

5.) My Grandmother Has Always Been A Christian - NOT EXACTLY, she does her daily Salat prayers at 5am according to her own interviews. Not to mention, Christianity wouldn't allow her to have been one of 14 wives to 1 man.
 6.) My Name is African Swahili - NOT EXACTLY, your name is Arabic and 'Baraka' (from which Barack came) means 'blessed' in that language.
Hussein is also Arabic and so is Obama. Barack Hussein Obama is not half black. If elected, he would be the first Arab-American President, not the first black President. Barack Hussein Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother's side and 43.75% Arabic and 6.25% African Negro from his father's side. While Barack Hussein Obama's father was from Kenya, his father's family was mainly Arabs. Barack Hussein Obama's father was only 12.5% African Negro and 87.5% Arab (his father's birth certificate even states he's Arab, not African Negro). From, and for more, go to:
 7.) I Never Practiced Islam - NOT EXACTLY, you practiced it daily at school, where you were registered as a Muslim and kept that faith for 31 years, until your wife made you change, so you could run for office. 4-3-08 Article 'Obama was 'quite religious in Islam''
 8.) My School In Indonesia was Christian - NOT EXACTLY, you were registered as Muslim there and got in trouble in Koranic Studies for making faces (check your own book). February 28, 2008. Kristoff from the New York Times a year ago: Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it'll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as 'one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.' This is just one example of what Pamela is talking about when she says 'Obama's narrative is being altered, enhanced and manipulated to whitewash troubling facts.'
 9.) I Was Fluent In Indonesian - NOT EXACTLY, not one teacher says you could speak the language.

10.) Because I Lived In Indonesia, I Have More Foreign Experience - NOT EXACTLY, you were there from the ages of 6 to 10, and couldn't even speak the language. What did you learn-- how to study the Koran and watch cartoons?

11.) I Am Stronger On Foreign Affairs - NOT EXACTLY, except for Africa(surprise) and the Middle East (bigger surprise), you have never been anywhere else on the planet and thus have NO experience with our closest allies.

12.) I Blame My Early Drug Use On Ethnic Confusion - NOT EXACTLY, you were quite content in high school to be Barry Obama, no mention of Kenya and no mention of struggle to identify - your classmates said you were just fine.

13.) An Ebony Article Moved Me To Run For Office - NOT EXACTLY, Ebony has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesn't, and never did, exist.

14.) A Life Magazine Article Changed My outlook on Life - NOT EXACTLY, Life has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesn't, and never did, exist.

15.) I Won't Run On A National Ticket In '08 - NOT EXACTLY, here you are, despite saying, live on TV, that you would not have enough experience by then, and you are all about having experience first.

16.) Voting 'Present' is Common In Illinois Senate - NOT EXACTLY, they are common for YOU, but not many others have 130 NO VOTES.

17.) Oops, I Mis-voted - NOT EXACTLY, only when caught by church groups and Democrats, did you beg to change your mis-vote.

18.) I Was A Professor Of Law - NOT EXACTLY, you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.

19.) I Was A Constitutional Lawyer - NOT EXACTLY, you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.

20.) Without Me, There Would Be No Ethics Bill - NOT EXACTLY, you didn't write it, introduce it, change it, or create it.

21.) The Ethics Bill Was Hard To Pass - NOT EXACTLY, it took just 14 days from start to finish.
 22.) I Wrote A Tough Nuclear Bill - NOT EXACTLY, your bill was rejected by your own party for its pandering and lack of all regulation - mainly because of your Nuclear donor, Exelon, from which David Axelrod came.

23.) I Have Released My State Records - NOT EXACTLY, as of March, 2008, state bills you sponsored or voted for have yet to be released, exposing all the special interests pork hidden within.
 24.) I Took On The Asbestos Altgeld Gardens Mess - NOT EXACTLY, you were part of a large group of people (20) who remedied Altgeld Gardens . You failed to mention anyone else but yourself in your books.

 25.) My Economics Bill Will Help America - NOT EXACTLY, your 111 economic policies were just combined into a proposal which lost 99-0, and even YOU voted against your own bill.

26.) I Have Been A Bold Leader In Illinois - NOT EXACTLY, even your own supporters claim to have not seen BOLD action on your part.

27.) I Passed 26 Of My Own Bills In One Year - NOT EXACTLY, they were not YOUR bills, but rather handed to you, after their creation by a fellow Senator, to assist you in a future bid for higher office.

28.) No One on my campaign contacted Canada about NAFTA - NOT EXACTLY, the Canadian Government issued the names and a memo of the conversation your campaign had with them.

 29.) I Am Tough On Terrorism - NOT EXACTLY, you missed the Iran Resolution vote on terrorism and your good friend Ali Abunimah supports the destruction of Israel .

30.) I Want All Votes To Count - NOT EXACTLY, you said let the delegates decide.

31.) I Want Americans To Decide - NOT EXACTLY, you prefer caucuses that limit the vote, confuse the voters, force a public vote, and only operate during small windows of time.

32.) I passed 900 Bills in the State Senate - NOT EXACTLY, you passed 26, most of which (20) you didn't write yourself.

33.) I Believe In Fairness, Not Tactics - NOT EXACTLY, you used tactics to eliminate Alice Palmer from running against you.

34.) I Don't Take PAC Money - NOT EXACTLY, you take loads of it.

35.) I don't Have Lobbyists - NOT EXACTLY, you have over 47 lobbyists, and counting.

36.) My Campaign Had Nothing To Do With The 1984 Ad - NOT EXACTLY, your own campaign worker made the ad on his <http://www.apple.com/> Apple in just one afternoon.

37.) I Have Always Been Against Iraq - NOT EXACTLY, you weren't in office to vote against it AND you have voted to fund it every single time.

38.) I Have Always Supported Universal Health Care - NOT EXACTLY, your plan leaves us all to pay for the 15,000,000 who don't have to buy it


Actions speak louder than words. Here are some true tales about Cindy Hensly McCain and the McCain family. I particularly like the parts about her philanthropy and the little jibe that 'Michelle Obama gives to CARE: Cindy McCain sits on the Board of CARE.' McCain's son by his first wife was a Navy pilot. He has one son now in Annapolis. He has another son who has already served on tour with the Marines in Iraq and is preparing to go back for a second tour.

Here are two interesting articles: one on Cindy Hensly McCain; the other on John McCain's sons. We've heard so much about Michelle Obama, but we don't know much about John McCain's wife, Cindy. We may have the wrong person running for the Presidency. This is an interesting article as not much was known about her. She was on Leno the other night and it was an interesting interview. It turns out that she is a character as she is & has been a race car driver. She is also a pilot and flies John around the country to his rallies.

After hearing that about her and reading this I now have a lot of respect for her. Election 2008: Cindy Hensley McCain has been disparaged as a trophy wife, a Barbie, an heiress with fancy purses But there's more to the picture than meets the eye. Yes, Mrs. McCain is the perfectly coifed blonde standing dutifully behind the senator during his speeches. And yes, she wears stylish clothing and carries a Prada purse. And it's true she doesn't say much. But feminist critics who write her off as a 'stand-by-your-man' shrinking violet are selling her short. In many ways, Cindy McCain stacks up sturdier than Hillary Clinton or Michelle Obama. And she'd make a more impressive first lady. Mrs McCain: More than meets the eye. While Obama's wife has been hating America , complaining about the war and undermining our troops serving in Afghanistan , McCain's wife has been worrying about her sons who actually are fighting or planning to fight in the war on terror. One, in fact, was until a few months ago deployed in Iraq during some of the worst violence. {I actually met their son Jack here in Newport a few years ago!!!)

You don't hear the McCains talk about it, but their 19-year-old Marine, Jimmy, is preparing for his second tour of duty. Their 21-year-old son, Jack, is poised to graduate from Annapolis and also could join the Marines as a Second Lieutenant. The couple made the decision not to draw attention to their sons out of respect for other families with sons and daughters in harm's way.

Cindy also says she doesn't want to risk falling apart on the campaign trail talking about Jimmy who was so young when he enlisted she had to sign consent forms for his medical tests before he could report for duty and potentially upsetting parents of soldiers who are serving or have been killed. The McCains want to make sure their boys get no special treatment. Same goes for their five other children, including a daughter they adopted from Bangladesh .. During a visit to Mother Teresa's orphanage there, Cindy noticed a dying baby. The orphanage could not provide the medical care needed to save her life. So she brought the child home to America for the surgery she desperately needed. The baby is now their healthy, 16-year-old daughter, Bridget.

Though all seven McCain children including two Sen. McCain adopted from his first marriage are supportive of their father, they prefer their privacy to the glare of the campaign trail. Another daughter, Meghan, 23 , helps him behind the scenes. Cindy McCain not only cherishes her children, but also her country, which in an election year filled with America-bashing, is a refreshing novelty. She seethed when she heard Michelle Obama's unpatriotic remarks that she only recently grew proud of America 'I am very proud of my country,' Mrs. McCain asserted.

She also may be tougher than the other women in the race. While Hillary thinks she's come under sniper fire on mission trips abroad, Cindy has actually seen violence. She witnessed a boy get blown up by a mine in Kuwait during a trip with an international group that removes land mines from war-torn countries. Mrs. McCain also is a hands-on philanthropist. She sits on the board of Operation Smile, which arranges for plastic surgeons to fix cleft palates and other birth defects.. She also has helped organize relief missions to Micronesia.

During a scuba-diving vacation to the islands, Mrs. McCain took a friend to a local hospital to have a cut treated. She was shocked, and saddened, by what she saw. 'They opened the door to the OR, where the supplies were, and there were two cats and a whole bunch of rats climbing out of the sterile supplies, 'she recalled. 'They had no X-ray machine, no beds. To me, it was devastating because it was a U.S. Trust territory.' As soon as she returned home, she arranged for medical equipment and teams of doctors to be sent to treat the island children. Michelle Obama may contribute to CARE, which fights global poverty and works to empower poor women. Cindy sits on its board. While the Democrat women talkabout helping the poor and needy, Cindy McCain actually rolls up her sleeves and does it. Who's the out-of-touch elitist? Meanwhile we also have John's sons. Not picking sides but thought everyone should read this very interesting story: Talk about putting your most valuable where your mouth is! Apparently this was not 'newsworthy' enough for the media to comment about. Can either of the other presidential candidates truthfully come close to this? ... Just a question for each of us to seek an answer, and not a statement.

You see...character is what's shown when the public is not looking. There were no cameras or press invited to what you are about to read about, and the story comes from one person in New Hampshire.

One evening last July, Senator John McCain of Arizona arrived at the New Hampshire home of Erin Flanagan for sandwiches, chocolate-chip cookies and a heartfelt talk about Iraq .. They had met at a presidential debate, when she asked the candidates what they would do to bring home American soldiers -- soldiers like her brother, who had been killed in action a few months earlier. Mr. McCain did not bring cameras or press. Instead, he brought his youngest son, James McCain, 19, then a private first class in the Marine Corps about to leave for Iraq . Father and son sat down to hear more about Ms. Flanagan's brother Michael Cleary, a 24-year-old Army First Lieutenant killed by an ambush ... a roadside bomb. No one mentioned the obvious: In just days, Jimmy McCain could face similar perils. 'I can't imagine what it must have been like for them as they were coming to meet with a family that ......' Ms. Flanagan recalled, choking up. 'We lost a dear one,' she finished. Mr. McCain, now the presumptive Republican nominee, has staked his candidacy on the promise that American troops can bring stability to Iraq . What he almost never says is that one of them is his own son, who spent seven months patrolling Anbar Province and learned of his father's New Hampshire victory in January while he was digging a stuck military vehicle out of the mud.

Two of Jimmy's three older brothers went into the military. Doug McCain, 48, was a Navy pilot. Jack McCain, 21, is to graduate from the Naval Academy next year, raising the chances that his father, if elected, could become the first president since Dwight D. Eisenhower with a son at war.

I chose to share this with those who I believe will pass it on, to others who will pass it on. We hear so much inflated trash out there. How about a simple act of kindness ... and dedication to others placed above oneself?

Has anybody heard if Barack Hussein Obama has served in The American Armed Services? This is for all you Barack voters.

From Barack's book, Audacity of Hope: 'I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.' HE DID NOT SAY "STAND WITH AMERICANS!"

Iranians Hoping for ‘Muslim’ Obama Victory

Iran’s leadership has expressed “great pleasure” at the prospect of a Barack Obama victory in November, according to Menashe Amir, the Iranian-born head of Radio Israel’s Persian language service.

But Iranian President Ahmadinejad has said he doubts that the American establishment “will allow” Obama to win.

“One of the Iranian religious leaders said if Obama will enter the White House, then Islam will conquer the heart of the American nation,” Amir told Isracast.com.

The Iranian leadership likes Obama “mainly because he is a Muslim,” according to Amir. His first name, Barack, comes from “al-baraq,” which is the name of the horse that Muslims believe Muhammad rode on his way to paradise.

His middle name Hussein is also a Muslim name, and he was “born in a Muslim family,” said Amir.

Columnist: Blacks will go on ‘Race War’ if Obama doesn't win

A Philadelphia columnist has gone over the top and warned that if John McCain defeats Barack Obama in November, America will face a “race and class war.”

Fatimah Ali of the Philadelphia Daily News, declaring that a McCain victory would bring “four more years of George Bush,” writes: “Rich Republicans just don’t understand that millions are suffering . . . 

“Over the last eight years, we've lost 3.2 million jobs and started a war that's cost trillions. The lies and deceit that got us into Iraq in the first place are just the tip of the iceberg and have ruined America's reputation across the globe.

“Meanwhile, our economy continues to crumble, while crime, homelessness, and poverty continue to soar . . . Suffering is widespread as the gap between rich and poor widens.

"The Bush administration doesn't get it and neither does McCain. He is so out of touch that he hasn't a clue how many homes he owns, while the working class struggles to hold on to one.”

Then Ali warns, “If McCain wins, look for a full-fledged race and class war, fueled by a deflated and depressed country, soaring crime, homelessness — and hopelessness!”

But if Obama wins the presidency, Ali said, “we may just see a revolution that can turn the tide and improve this nation for everyone, not just a select few.”

Obama’s Unwed Mom Pregnant at 17

Before Democrats question the moral turpitude of Sarah Palin’s 17-year-old unmarried daughter following the announcement that she’s pregnant, they might note that Barack Obama’s mother was an unwed 17-year-old when she conceived him.

Barack’s Kansas-born mom Ann Dunham married his Kenyan father Barack Obama Sr. on Feb. 2, 1961. Since Barack Obama was born on Aug. 4, 1961, he was conceived before his mother’s 18th birthday on Nov. 29, 1960.

Amanda Ripley reported in Time magazine: “On Feb. 2, 1961, several months after they met, Obama's parents got married in Maui, according to divorce records. It was a Thursday. At that point, Ann was three months pregnant with Barack Obama II . . .

“The motivations behind the marriage remain a mystery, even to Obama. ‘I never probed my mother about the details. Did they decide to get married because she was already pregnant? Or did he propose to her in the traditional, formal way?’ Obama wonders. ‘I suppose, had she not passed away, I would have asked more.’”

Barack Obama Sr. left Ann and their son in 1963, and she married Lolo Soetoro, the presidential candidate’s stepfather, in 1967.

Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin said on Monday that her 17-year-old unmarried daughter Bristol was five months pregnant, and that Bristol would keep her baby and marry the child's father.

The Case Against Barack Obama
The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media's Favorite Candidate

FREE OFFER! — Get This Book Free, Click Here Now: (http://shop.newsmax.com/shop/index.cfm?page=products&productid=609)

You Don’t Know Barack Obama Until You Read This Book.

This new book — "The Case Against Barack Obama" is published by the same group that brought you "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry" — the book that defeated John Kerry in 2004.

Already the liberal media has condemned "The Case Against Barack Obama" because it could change the outcome of the election.

Make no doubt about it, Barack Obama is the media's darling, the fresh face of the Democratic ticket. But what does Barack Obama really stand for — and will his extreme liberal agenda and complete inexperience in global affairs endanger the country?

That's what David Freddoso, investigative reporter and National Review Online columnist, examines in "The Case Against Barack Obama."

Has any major candidate for president of the United States ever received less critical examination than Barack Obama? Who is this man, who was only elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004?

How did someone with his meager record of accomplishment become the Democratic nominee for president? How did someone with the most liberal voting record in the U.S. Senate and long-standing relationships with a former terrorist, a racist minister, and the corrupt operators of Chicago Machine politics end up as a supposed beacon of a newer, cleaner, bipartisan politics?

Investigative reporter David Freddoso has the answers. Doing the legwork that the mainstream media has neglected, applying a critical eye while the media swoons before the Obama-messiah, and posing the hard questions that Obama needs to answer, Freddoso reveals a politician as calculating as any other, a far-left Democrat who goes beyond "abortion rights" to supporting de facto infanticide, whose "new politics" amount to Chicago-style hardball overlain with lofty rhetoric, and who, from his positions of power, has helped his patrons.

In "The Case Against Barack Obama", you’ll learn:
• How Obama’s friendship with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright was no accident, but a carefully thought-out personal and political decision
• The inside story of Obama's association with terrorist Bill Ayers wouldn’t matter — an exposé of the insular radical chic of Chicago's Hyde Park politics
• The real story of Obama as a puppet of Mayor Daley's corrupt Chicago political machine
• What Obama really did for convicted developer Tony Rezko
• Debunking the myth of Obama’s "new" politics: how Obama won his first election by throwing all of his competitors off the ballot
• The new 'Dirty Politics': how underhanded politics sabotaged Obama's opponents in his 2004 Senate race
• A story Obama would like to stay buried in Chicago: how he used his clout as a U.S. senator to save the corrupt Cook County Political Machine when reformers of both parties tried to challenge the entrenched political bosses
• How Barack Obama opposed a bill banning infanticide-by-neglect — a stance too extreme even for Nancy Pelosi. (Freddoso has an exclusive interview with the nurse central to the case.)
• Why the National Abortion Rights Action League says Obama is the most pro-abortion candidate they have ever backed
• How Obama has repeatedly steered taxpayer money to campaign donors
• And much, much more.

Sober, fair, and thoroughly researched — and all the more powerful and provocative because of it — "The Case Against Barack Obama" removes the halo from a man less qualified, and more radical, than the mainstream media has let you know.

Find out why electing this man as our Commander-in-Chief could be the most dangerous decision in American history.

Obama's Wrong Values

Obama's Awful High Tax Policies

Obama's Liberal Policies are WRONG!

Hillary Clinton Rips Apart Barack Obama

Obama's Patriotism Problem

What are the two secrets that will rip the mask from Obama's young face and reveal his charade for what it is-phantom liberalism?

Floyd Brown has the answers!

And who better to begin the unmasking than Floyd Brown, the man who has loyally served the conservative cause since the Reagan years. Floyd's search for the real man behind the mask took him onto 3 continents, into the slums of South Chicago, up into New York's power suites, and out to Hollywood...

Floyd had no interest in attacking Obama with base accusations or wild smears. He aimed for the simple facts...

Would the mad billionaire George Soros run wild in an Obama White House? 

But what he uncovered - especially two plots being hatched by George Soros and David Geffen to steal the White House for Obama - were the most damning things we've ever seen in politics.

There are several good books on Obama, and I applaud them all. But no other book reveals these two secret plots, plots which clearly explain how Obama rose to power so quickly and how dearly we'll all pay if he wins.

These plots could be as damaging to Obama as Deep Throat was to Nixon or Whitewater to Clinton. When these revelations hit the streets, they'll he hotter than a liberal hawking global warming.

If Obama fails in his bid, it will be because of new discoveries about the people who brought him into this world, who groomed him for this moment, who now see themselves on the cusp of controlling a superpower-a lifelong dream of these people, these handlers.

So I am asking you to get Obama Unmasked and then tell at least five friends to get a copy as well - that's how we'll stop the Obama media machine from rolling right over an unsuspecting electorate.

How Would a President Obama Respond to These Madmen?  

Late on the night of January 20, 2009, the next Commander-in-Chief will be driven from the inaugural festivities to the Oval Office where he will be met by a national security staff ready with a "Threat Briefing."

 Will the lunatic Iranian President Ahmadinejad be moving nuclear missiles into Venezuela, pointed north?

 Will Russian stormtroopers be marching southward, trying to reclaim their lost glory by reigniting the Cold War?

 Will Syria's Assad be ready to hammer Tel Aviv through his Lebanese proxies?

And what of the other unhinged madmen in Venezuela, North Korea, the Sudan, Zimbabwe, Burma, and the caves of Afghanistan? All kinds of bad boys are hanging around the global water cooler these days...


Obama with Arafat Advisor Edward Said at an anti-Israel fundraiser. 

By his own account, Obama would consider it a priority to meet at once with every evil thug out there - without precondition.

A stroll down the Champs Elysees with Ahmadinejad would make a rare photo opp - two men of Muslim heritage, there in an emerging Muslim nation, one of them holding a knife behind his back.

How did America get to the point when a greenhorn like Obama could be within a breath of the Presidency?

And while we're asking...

Why are so many Islamofascists who are sworn to the destruction of America also actively campaigning for Obama?

What special rights would Muslims demand, and receive, from Obama?


Farrakhan fires up Nation of Islam to march for Obama

After refusing to condemn MoveOn.org for calling General Petraeus a war criminal, how could Obama be an effective Commander-in-Chief?

These are a few of the foreign policy issues answered in Obama Unmasked.

Then there are the questions about the homefront...

After Obama raises taxes the first time but doesn't get the revenue he thinks he needs, will he raise taxes a second time? And how high?

Would Obama put a gun to the head of an unborn child, but ban all other uses of that gun?

One Obama says he will force states to allow same-sex marriages. The other Obama says states can make their own decisions. Which of these two Obama's is lying?

 What did Obama promise union bosses to convince them to commit more than ONE BILLION DOLLARS to winning this election?

Will ObamaCare drive good doctors out of healthcare and leave us to the mercy of, well, of who?

 Do businessmen truly understand the tangle of workplace regulations they'll see from Obama's labor watchdogs?

 Will the senior posts in an Obama Administration be filled with nutcase preachers, shifty Chicago radicals, Clinton retreads, or all three?

And, in the final analysis, is it fair to conclude that Obama offers only the simple slogan of "change" because he has little else to offer?


Obama's oldest friend in politics is a murderer and unrepentant terrorist. Why are they friends? 
He has been completely masked by his handlers in Hollywood, New York, and Washington. His very survival as a candidate now depends on his keeping that mask snugly fit.

That's why Obama Unmasked is so important. And that's why your help is desperately needed to rip away the mask and let the voting public see what they'd really be getting with Obama as President.

Please use this opportunity to order at least one copy of Obama Unmasked, enjoy a great read, then share it widely!

And remember, when you get Obama Unmasked and then tell at least five friends to get a copy as well - you'll help to stop the Obama media machine from rolling right over an unsuspecting electorate.

Why Is Obama Afraid to Admit He Was Born and Raised Muslim?

Being a Black Muslim doesn't disqualify him for running for President, so why won't he be honest about it?

Maybe it's because of what Floyd dug up from Obama's distant and not-so-distant past...

 What was Obama's father doing with communist organizers just days before the Cuban Missile Crisis?

 What did Obama mean when he described the Muslim call to prayer as "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset"?

 Does Obama's supposed conversion to Christianity make him an apostate "whose blood may be shed" by the devout nutcases in Islam?

 When Obama was a full-time slacker-doing drugs and drinking heavily, did it stunt his development in any way?

Has Obama changed since he spoke of the "coldness of capitalism" and told his communist mentor he was "a spy behind enemy lines"?

And what about Michelle? When she says she's obligated to put blacks before whites, is she just pandering, or is she speaking honestly?

With the Obamas often not on speaking terms, which of them would be sleeping on the couch in the White House?


One of the Muslim schools Obama attended in Indonesia
Back when he was an Illinois Senator, why did Obama vote "Present" a record-setting 130 times? Is that leadership? Is that "change"?

When Obama did vote on important issues, why did he vote the "Democratic Socialists of America" party line every time? (You could call that "change" but not the kind we need!)

How easily can Obama be bought? Unsealing the federal indictment against his close pal and fundraiser (and convicted felon) Tony "the Fixer" Rezko should reveal plenty.

Earlier we spoke of two revelations in Obama Unmasked that may well blow the lid off this election. Okay, first, a source close to the mad billionaire George Soros has revealed that Soros is planning...

Geffen's "November Surprise" Could  Trick Millions into Voting for Obama and Make Soros a Fortune. 


A dirty Chicago machine made Obama, and will be expecting blood loyalty... 
Soros' lefty candidates have lost the last two elections, and he's pissing mad. He has $7 billion to spend to get it right this time! He is reportedly planning to sack the U.S. economy, make himself billions richer, and put Obama in the White House marching to his mad tune. All the details, as well as how you'll be affected financially, are in the book.

And out on the left coast, Obama has a powerful ally in billionaire Hollywood mogul David Geffen.

Nobody knows how to spin a yarn better than Hollywood's finest, David Geffen. And according to our source, he'll be a whirling dervish!

Radical leftists see Obama as their ticket to power-and they are pulling out all the stops. Not just an October Surprise, but a November Surprise as well. The first from New York, the second from Hollywood.

We may be in for the craziest election ever, with so many unknowns...

That's why Floyd has worked so hard to peel back the mask and reveal the real Obama, his true political leanings, and what we could expect from an Obama presidency.

Few books are written in hopes of being unnecessary in just a few months-but this is one of those books. Our hope is that this book will be remaindered on November 5th because Obama has been told by voters that he's not ready for such an important job.

Our fear is that voters will say otherwise.

So we're doing our best to make sure we're not stuck in an Obama nation. Can you


Our publisher has also made an effort to keep the book price low, so it's not a burden to get a copy.

And if everyone who gets a copy passes it to someone else before the election, then maybe we can stop the radical left from putting Obama in the White House and their socialist stamp on our nation.

To order book: https://fs7.formsite.com/C4Strategies/form601078395/secure_index.html

Floyd Brown gained notoriety with his book Slick Willy: Why America Cannot Trust Bill Clinton and his famous "Willie Horton" ad that sank Dukakis in 1988. He also founded Citizens United, ran the Young America's Foundation, and worked for four presidential candidates, beginning with Ronald Reagan.

After serving as a press aide in the Reagan White House, Lee Troxler wrote Along Wit's Trail: The Humor & Wisdom of Ronald Reagan. More recently he wrote and helped produce 3 movies-Hillary: the Movie; On Native Soil: The Documentary of the 9/11 Commission Report; FahrenHYPE 9/11.

Both authors spend more time in business than politics, but as this election unfolded they were moved to action. They watched as a young Senator with a 1-page resume was lifted up onto the world's mightiest pedestal simply because he was black, handsome, and articulate. So the authors began asking questions...

Lee Troxler

P.S. Everyone I speak to agrees that this is Obama's race to lose. He'll win it unless we (1) make our case with passion and (2) recommit ourselves to the ideals and principles we hold dear.

Green Jobs
John Stossel
Wednesday, September 10, 2008

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has a great twofer pitch: "green jobs." It sounds like a winner. In one fell swoop he can promise to end unemployment and fix and save the planet from climate change.

Or so he says.

"I'll invest $150 billion over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy -- wind power and solar power and the next generation of biofuels; an investment that will lead to new industries and five million new jobs that pay well and can't ever be outsourced," he told the Democratic National Convention.

Wow. Five million new jobs. All that work building windmills and creating biofuels are the "green jobs" that will come into existence when wise government creates the industries that will produce the energy and vehicles that will make fossil fuels obsolete.

Politicians always promise that their programs will create jobs. It's used to justify building palatial sports stadiums for wealthy team owners. Alaska Rep. Don Young claimed the infamous "bridge to nowhere" would create jobs. The fallacy is the same in every case: Even if the program creates jobs building bridges or windmills, it necessarily prevents other jobs from being created. This is because government spending merely diverts money from private projects to government projects.

Governments create no wealth. They only move it around while taking a cut for their trouble. So any jobs created over here come at the expense of jobs that would have been created over there. Overlooking this fact is known as the broken-window fallacy. The French economist Frederic Bastiat pointed out that a broken shop window will create work for a glassmaker, but that work comes only at the expense of the cook or tailor the shopkeeper would have patronized if he didn't have to replace the window.

Creating jobs is not difficult for government officials. Pharaohs created thousands of jobs by building pyramids. Our government could create jobs by paying people to dig holes and then fill them up. Would actual wealth be created? Of course not. It would be destroyed. It's like arguing the hurricanes create jobs. After all, the destruction is followed by rebuilding. But does anyone seriously believe that replacing destroyed buildings creates wealth?

Look at Obama's plan. His website says:

"Obama will strategically invest $150 billion over 10 years to accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial scale renewable energy, encourage energy efficiency, invest in low emissions coal plants, advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, and begin transition to a new digital electricity grid. The plan will also invest in America's highly skilled manufacturing workforce and manufacturing centers to ensure that American workers have the skills and tools they need to pioneer the green technologies that will be in high demand throughout the world."

Note that word "strategically." It is there to suggest that Obama knows how best to "invest" the $150 billion. (Of course it is not his money, and he'll have none of his own at risk, so from his perspective, it won't really be investment.) But how does he know that the things he names ought to get the money? Will he give it to cronies of his campaign contributors? Will he appoint Al Gore to pick grant recipients? Lobbyists will make a fortune steering "green" inventors and promoters to the $150 billion.

Politicians have a lousy record trying to make "strategic investments." President Jimmy Carter's Synthetic Fuels Corporation cost taxpayers at least $19 billion but failed to give us alternative fuels. In the 1950s Japan's supposedly omniscient Ministry of International Trade and Investment rebuffed Sony and was sure the country should have just one car producer.

Neither Gore nor Obama can know how the money should best be invested. Investing is about predicting the future, and the future is always uncertain. We know from experience that people who have their own money at risk -- who face a profit-and-loss test and possible bankruptcy -- are much better predictors than people who play with other people's money. Just compare North and South Korea.

One reason decentralized markets are preferable to government central planning is that human beings are fallible. Mistakes are inevitable. Some investments will be errors. Mistakes in the market tend to be on a comparatively small scale. If one company invests in plug-in hybrids and it goes bust, only a relatively few people suffer. The assets of the bankrupt firm pass into more capable hands.

But decisions by government, especially the federal government, affect all of us. When government makes a mistake, the bureaucracy can't go bankrupt. Instead, it will use its failure to justify increased appropriations in the next budget.

If "green jobs" make so much sense, the market will create them. They will be created by private entrepreneurs and venture capitalists who are eager to profit from winning investments. The best ideas will rise to the top, and green energy will gradually replace coal and oil.

If politicians were serious about creating jobs and cleaner technologies, they would step aside and let the free market go to work.

The Change Vote
Howie Rich
Tuesday, September 09, 2008

With the national political conventions now upon us, the American populace is once again being subjected to a massive bombardment of carefully-choreographed, expertly-themed media manipulation.

Invading our living rooms with glittery backdrops, colorfully-garbed talking heads and all manner of high-definition pomp and circumstance, Democrats and Republicans alike are making their respective pitches for the “hearts and minds” of the voters they seek to win over in November.

Stage-managed and scripted down to the last syllable, the goal of both parties’ propaganda machines this year is to present their candidates as agents of change, catalysts for cleaning up a corrupt Washington culture that is – as it ever was – the “other party’s” mess.

Yet with Congressional approval ratings approaching single digits and evidence mounting that Americans are tuning out all of the political noise, is either party’s blitzkrieg of bad reality television going to work?

And more importantly, is either party truly capable of delivering the kind of “change” Americans want?

Now more than ever, the answer is “No.”

Sure, Democrat Barack Obama has endeavored to make “Change” his middle name, whereas Republican John McCain has dusted off his “Maverick” mantle for another run at the office which eluded him eight years ago. But neither candidate seems capable of moving past platitudes, and neither party seems capable of endorsing policies that reflect the true will of the American people.

For Democrats, “change” means another explosion of the size and scope of the federal government, while for Republicans “change” means tinkering around the edges of existing government entitlements which are dragging this country off a fast-approaching fiscal cliff.

Mired in an economic recession due to government overspending, neither party seems to recognize the fact that Americans are beset on all sides by new encroachments on their personal freedom and their pocketbooks. These impediments loom even larger the bigger government gets and the further it strays from the ideals upon which it was founded.

Yet while our deflated economy takes its toll on families and small businesses from coast to coast, taxpayer-funded special interests and politicians in Washington continue feeding the beast of big government and blocking the elimination of programs that government had no business creating in the first place.

And no matter how loudly they protest, the truth is that both parties share equally in the blame for our deepening economic crisis.

After all, it was the Republican Party – the party of “less government” – which grew the national debt by $3 trillion while it was in power, only to lose that power in 2006 to the party of “more government,” which campaigned on making government “live within its means” but is already running up record deficits of its own.

With zero credibility, the best both parties can do is obfuscate and misdirect, with Obama and the Democrats clinging to the myth of spending sustainability and McCain and the Republicans luring voters’ eyes overseas (and away from the GOP’s record of fiscal recklessness).

Neither party, it seems, has the courage to do what is necessary to truly change this country.

The result of this twin partisan failure, of course, is the fact that the political class is discussing all of the wrong things.

For example, the long-overdue debate as to why our government does a million and one things it was never meant to do simply isn’t on our politicians’ radar screens any longer. Similarly, the debilitating effect of government’s overreaching continues to inflict on our liberties and our livelihoods is also shuffled off to the side.

Voters know all too well the consequences of our politicians’ insatiable appetites, because they are currently struggling to balance their own budgets in order to provide for the taxes that sustain them.

Taxpayers are yearning for “change,” but until leaders in both parties take a long, hard look at the definition of that word they are advancing via their glam rock conventions, we will end up with nothing but more of the same.

Obama vs. McCain - A Clear Choice
Larry Elder
Thursday, September 11, 2008

A matter of "neighborliness." That's how Democratic presidential aspirant Barack Obama justified raising taxes.

Obama compared the circumstances of a person who is "sitting pretty" with that of a waitress. The waitress struggles, said Obama, while the rich can, and should, pay more. Nothing more, really, than a standard soak-the-rich plan, redistributing the wealth from the haves to the have-nots. But does Obama practice his own "neighborliness"?

When Obama and his wife earned between $200,000 and $300,000 annually from 2000 through 2004, they donated less than 1 percent to charity. As a result of the sales from Obama's two books, he and Michelle earned as much as $4 million per year the past couple of years. Then the Obamas' charitable contributions went up to 5 percent.

Let's turn to Iraq. Obama grudgingly concedes that the surge worked "beyond our wildest dreams." But he points out an "underlying problem." What "underlying problem"? Obama accuses the Iraqi government of failing to attain "political reconciliation," insisting that the government refuses to "take responsibility." Really?

Of the 18 so-called Iraqi government benchmarks demanded by Congress, the Iraqi government has met or is close to meeting nearly all of them. Of the 18 provinces in Iraq, the Iraqi military and police now control 11 of them. Gen. David Petraeus, the region's commander, recently said that by next summer, he expects the Iraqis to take over control of Baghdad. In July, there were six American combat-related deaths, down from 66 last July.

Let's turn to the economy and Bush's allegedly failed economic policies. Under President Bush, the economic pie grew. Tax receipts grew by 20 percent, to the highest level in our nation's history. And remember, Bush inherited an economy going into a recession. On Sept. 11, 2001, America suffered the worst attack on its soil in its history. Spending increased for Homeland Security and the war in Iraq. And of the current economic sluggishness, most can be attributed to the slump in housing. Does anybody, except for the most ardent Bush-hater, blame the President for the housing downturn? Following 9/11, polls showed that Americans overwhelmingly expected another attack within six months to a year. We have not had another attack on American soil in the seven years since 9/11.

One of Obama's plans to "rescue" the American economy includes a "windfall" profits tax to punish oil companies for their "obscene profits." But the price of a barrel of oil fell from $147 per barrel in July to $101 today. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., assails the "oilmen" in the White House for rising oil prices. But the same "oilmen" remained in the White House during the more than 30 percent decline in prices. For what it's worth, the United States produces almost 7 percent of the world's crude oil supply. So somehow, someway, the greedy oilmen managed to push oil prices to worldwide historic levels, despite controlling only 7 percent of supply.

So what does this all mean for the presidential race between Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain? Issue No. 1, for most voters, remains the economy. Obama recently said he may delay tax hikes in the event of continued economic sluggishness. Obama thus admits that higher taxes negatively affect the economy during hard times. But during good times, higher taxes affect the economy positively? And as to the war in Iraq, polls show Americans now confident of victory. Credit the "surge" -- an increase in forces and a change in tactics long championed by McCain. Obama not only opposed the surge but also predicted its failure. He was wrong, and McCain was right.

Obama offers the George McGovern/Walter Mondale/Al Gore/John Kerry prescription of class warfare and class envy. It blames American "aggression" for its alleged loss of "respect" in the eyes of the world.

The other side shows greater belief in free markets and free trade, and considers American success in Iraq a matter of national security. Democrats attack McCain and his image as a "maverick" by claiming that the Arizona senator voted with President Bush 90 percent of the time. But Sen. Barack "hope and change" Obama, in the past three years, voted with his party nearly 97 percent of the time.

Americans, in the final analysis, want a strong economy and wish to live in safety and security. So the choice is simple. It's McCain.

Words Obama Will Regret
Ken Blackwell
Thursday, September 11, 2008

On Monday, Senator Obama uttered one sentence that could haunt him until Election Day. He said of Senator McCain and Governor Palin telling voters they would bring change, “they must think you’re stupid.” Given his stances on the surge, social issues, and his past, Mr. Obama will regret those words.

Let’s start with social issues like Second Amendment freedoms. Mr. Obama denies that he’s ever supported banning handguns, right after the landmark Heller case where the Supreme Court struck down Washington D.C.’s handgun ban.

When a 1996 questionnaire surfaced that had asked if Mr. Obama supported banning all handguns, his one-word written answer was “yes.” He said an unnamed staffer must have filled it out without his knowledge. Then another copy surfaced — this one with his handwriting on it. He says he must not have read that particular question. Sure.

On the hot-button issue of abortion, last month saw a growing concern over Mr. Obama’s opposition to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which states if an abortion is botched and a live birth results, the baby is entitled to medical care. The federal version of this law unanimously passed the U.S. Senate.

However, when a version of this bill came to the Illinois Senate, Mr. Obama opposed it. When confronted last month with the fact that the federal version of this bill had been supported by the likes of Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer, Mr. Obama said the he would have supported the federal version. Those suggesting otherwise were lying, he said. Then it was revealed that a second bill was introduced in the Illinois Senate, and this one was identical to the federal version. Mr. Obama opposed that bill as well. He has yet to come up with an explanation on that one.

And there are Mr. Obama’s associations. Let’s start with the infamous Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Mr. Obama expressed shock that Rev. Wright would say things like “God damn America” and say the American government created AIDS to commit genocide against black people. Yet he belonged to that church for 20 years. He was married by Rev. Wright, had his children baptized by him, and even took his book title from one of the good reverend’s sermons.

When Rev. Wright’s outrageous diatribes surfaced, Mr. Obama refused to renounce him. Then when Rev. Wright repeated the same statements at the National Press Club, and Mr. Obama had clinched the nomination, suddenly he denounced him. Why? He said Rev. Wright’s statements in D.C. were unlike anything he had heard before and he was shocked. But those statements had been in the news for months. Are we to believe that Mr. Obama had not read or heard any of the news for weeks? Or that he never heard anything similar in more than 20-years of listening to Rev. Wright’s sermons? Hmm.

Bill Ayers is another stunner. Mr. Ayers bombed a police station and the Pentagon, and recently said he wished he had done more. He is an unrepentant terrorist, but is popular among the ultra-left in Chicago. When Mr. Obama was asked about Mr. Ayers, he implied that he barely knew him.

But once again facts have surfaced. We now know that Mr. Ayers hosted a fundraiser for Mr. Obama. They served for years together on a board with only a few people, and they worked closely on financial matters during those years. Does that sound like someone he barely knows?

And then we have the Iraq war. Congress authorized war against Iraq in 2002. The vote in the Democrat-controlled U.S. Senate was an overwhelming bipartisan majority of 77-23. The intelligence provided to Congress was profoundly flawed, but based on the intelligence presented, Congress voted for war. That is why those voting for the war included John Kerry, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton,and — yes — Joe Biden.

Yet Mr. Obama, who was in the Illinois Senate at the time and thus had no vote, opposed the war. He says that this shows his superior judgment, and that those voting for the war, like John McCain, lack the judgment to be president. But his vice presidential pick Joe Biden voted for the war, and Mr. Obama says Mr. Biden has the judgment to be president. How do you reconcile that?

And finally we have the surge. Mr. Obama opposed it, saying it was doomed to fail. Yet the troop surge has succeeded brilliantly, and all but the most dedicated diehards admit it. Now Mr. Obama acknowledges that it succeeded, but does not admit his predictions of failure were wrong. How were they not wrong?

These actions have made a pattern. Mr. Obama has changed his position on numerous occasions, cannot explain why he has done so, and yet his campaign expects us to believe that he never changed his mind on any of those issues.

He must think we’re stupid.

Letter from Joe Bidden's CPA:

Family and Friends,

I feel an obligation to honesty and truth to share with you some facts.  My Father and Mother instilled in me the values and morals of treating people fairly and always being honest.  If you purchase something, you pay for it.  If you borrow something, you give it back.

I have been 'stiffed' three times in my 30 year professional career by someone who I rendered services to, gave a finished product to, but who refused to pay for those services even though they acknowledged the services and products were correct, were what they asked for, and were never challenged for not being correct.  I am lucky in having only three, but those three hurt badly.

Joe Biden was one of those people.  I worked on his 1988 Presidential campaign financial disclosure engagement.  I busted it for him and got everything right.  He stiffed me for over $15,000 worth of work.  He refused to pay once he dropped out of the race.  I did similar Capitol Hill campaign financial disclosure work for Bob Dole, Pat Buchanan, and a Democratic candidate for Ambassador to New Zealand.  All of those folks paid even though they lost the election or did not get the appointment.  That type of work is very demanding and very tedious because your efforts are scrutinized by Congress.  Biden did not care.

I am on the Board of Directors of a company that owns a majority position in a private jet management company in Northern Virginia.  They manage jets for businesses and rich folks.  They also charter planes to the public.  This past winter John Thompson chartered over $250,000 worth of air time.  He paid every penny.

Joe Biden, in his latest unsuccessful run for President, chartered over $150,000 worth of air time.  He PAID ZERO.  He continues to refuse to pay stating his race is over and he is out of money.  He never once complained about his flights.  Joe Biden is a rich man.  He could pay.

Joe Biden is a liar and a cheat.  I know it first hand.  Character is what life is all about.  Joe Biden is a man of bad character and sets a bad example for America.

I feel compelled to share this dark side of a man who asks for your vote and trust.

Best Regards,

Bruce D. Riddle, CPA, CFP BDR Associates, LLC
2401 Research Boulevard, Suite 101 Rockville, MD 20850

Work - (240) 631-1981 Cell - (301) 580-7800

This is the first comparison that I have seen that you can check out to be sure it is true --
and this says nothing about stripping of the DoD, appeasement of the terrorists, and loss of  US sovereignty under world citizen Obama's relinquishment of US rights to the UN and World Court. 

Update: an article on Obama's site claims that after this article circulated, Biden decided to finally pay this debt. An honest person would've paid it before being forced to.


Favors new drilling offshore US       Yes No
Will appoint judges who interpret the law not make it  Yes No
Served in the  US Armed Forces  Yes No
Amount of time served in the US Senate 22 YEARS 173 DAYS
Will institute a socialized national health care plan   No Yes
Supports abortion throughout the pregnancy No Yes
Would pull troops out of  Iraq immediately in humiliation, like Vietnam No Yes
Supports gun ownership rights  Yes No
Supports homosexual marriage No Yes
Proposed programs will mean a huge tax increase No Yes
Voted against making English the official language No Yes
Voted to give Social Security benefits to illegals No Yes


MCCAIN:  0% on home sales up to $500,000 per home (couples). McCain does not propose any change in existing home sales income tax. 

OBAMA:  28% on profit from ALL home sales.  (How does this affect you? If you sell your home and make a profit, you will pay 28% of your gain on taxes. If you are heading toward retirement and would like to down-size your home or move into a retirement community, 28% of the money you make from your home will go to taxes. This proposal will adversely affect the elderly who are counting on the income from their homes as part of their retirement income.) 


MCCAIN:  15% (no change) 

OBAMA:  39.6% - (How will this affect you? If you have any money invested in stock market, IRA, mutual funds, college funds, life insurance, retirement accounts, or anything that pays or reinvests dividends, you will now be paying nearly 40% of the money earned on taxes if Obama becomes president. The experts predict that 'Higher tax rates on dividends and capital gains would crash the stock market, yet do absolutely nothing to cut the deficit.') 


(no changes)  Single making 30K - tax $4,500
Single making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 125K - tax $31,250 

OBAMA (reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts) 

Single making 30K - tax $8,400
Single making 50K - tax $14,000
Single making 75K - tax $23,250
Married making 60K - tax $16,800
Married making 75K - tax $21,000
Married making 125K - tax $38,750
Under Obama, your taxes could almost double! 


MCCAIN:  0% (No change, Bush repealed this tax) 

OBAMA:  Restore the inheritance tax
Many families have lost businesses, farms, ranches, and homes that have been in their families for generations because they could not afford the inheritance tax. Those willing their assets to loved ones will only lose them to these taxes. 

New government taxes proposed on homes that are more than 2400 square feet.  New gasoline taxes (as if gas weren't high enough already) New taxes on natural resources consumption (heating gas, water, electricity)  New taxes on retirement accounts, and last but not least....New taxes to pay for socialized medicine so we can receive the same level of medical care as other third-world countries!!! 

You can verify the above at the following web sites:




FREE copy of HUMAN EVENTS' new special report - "Barack Obama: EXPOSED!" (free 81 page PDF book): http://www.humanevents.com/offers/offer.php?id=BHO201

Free chapter of best seller "The Case Against Obama": http://www.humanevents.com/caseagainstobama/

Free Presidential Voters Guide (compares Obama vs McCain on important issues):

Windfall Tax on Retirement Income
Adding a tax to your retirement is simply another way of saying to the American people, "You're so darn stupid that we're going to keep doing this until we drain every cent from you."  That's what the Speaker of the House is saying.

Nancy Pelosi wants to put a Windfall Tax on all stock market profits (including Retirement funds, 401K's and Mutual Funds! Alas, it is true - all to help the 12 Million Illegal Immigrants and other unemployed Minorities!

This woman is frightening.

She quotes...' We need to work toward the goal of eqalizing income, (didn't Marx say something like this), in our country and at the same time limiting the amount the rich can invest.' ( I am not rich -- are you?)
When asked how these new tax dollars would be spent, she replied:

'We need to raise the standard of living of our poor, unemployed and minorities. For example, we have an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in our country who need our help along with millions of unemployed minorities. Stock market windfall profits taxes could go a long way to guarantee these people the standard of living they would like to have as 'Americans'.

Read that quote again and again and let it sink in: we want to lower your retirement and give it to others who have not worked as you have for it!

This lady is out of her mind!

I'm voting Democrat

I'm voting Democrat because English has no place being the official language in America.

I'm voting Democrat because it's better to turn corn into fuel than it is to eat.

I'm voting Democrat because I'd rather pay $4 for a gallon of gas than allow drilling for oil off the coasts of America.

I'm voting Democrat because I think the government will do a better job of spending my money than I could.

I'm voting Democrat because when we pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq, I know the Islamic terrorists will stop trying to kill us because they'll think we're a good and decent country.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe people who can't tell us if it will rain in two or three days, can now tell us the polar ice caps will disappear in ten years if I don't start riding a bicycle, build a windmill or inflate my tires to proper levels.

I'm voting Democrat because it's alright to kill millions of babies as long as we keep violent, convicted murderers on death row alive.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe businesses in America should not be allowed to make profits. Businesses should just break even and give the rest to the government so politicians and bureaucrats can redistribute the money the way they think it should be redistributed.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe guns, and not the people misusing them, are the cause of crimes and killings.

I'm voting Democrat because when someone with a weapon threatens my family or me, I know the government can respond faster through a call to 911 than I can with a gun in my hand.

I'm voting Democrat because oil companies' 5% profit on a gallon of gas are obscene, but government ta xes of 18% on the same gallon of gas are just fine.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe three or four elitist liberals should rewrite the Constitution every few months to suit some fringe element that could never get their agenda past voters.

I'm voting Democrat because illegal aliens are not criminals, are not sucking up resources through government aid, hospital services, education, or social services, but are just people trying to make a better life by coming to America illegally. We can't blame them for that, can we?

I'm voting Democrat because now I can now marry whatever I want, so I've decided to marry my horse.

Makes ya wonder why anyone would ever vote Republican, doesn't it?